As the United States spearheaded the development of the capitalist economy in the world in many respects, the inequalities and disadvantages of industrialization and the market revolution provoked widespread resentment. Dissatisfaction with the low income and poor living conditions of wage laborers, as opposed to the growing profits of industrialists and financiers, led to the emergence of different strands of socialist thought. Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, American thinkers developed varying versions of socialism in an attempt to address the shortcomings of the capitalist economy as it existed during the period and alleviate the plight of the working class. Yet while they recognized and tried to address the same problem, their approaches to solving it for the proletariat’s benefit could differ significantly. Two prominent examples of contrasting traditions of American socialist thought were Orestes Brownson and Eugene Debs. While both were convinced in the necessity of systemic changes rather than superficial reforms, Brownson limited his proposals to creating better legislation while Debs argued in favor of changing property relations – and, although Debs’ Marxist leanings gave him a firm sociological foundation, Brownson’s moderate approach was more feasible in America.
The key similarity between the versions of socialism entertained by Brownson and Debs alike was the fact that both thinkers were not satisfied with superficial reforms and sought a more profound and systemic change to address its root causes. In The Laboring Classes, Brownson (1840) expanded on this position in some detail, arguing that neither the development of Christian virtues in individual members of society nor putting the most moral people in the government could alleviate the problems of inequality. According to him, the only way to address the issues of economic inequality in capitalist society was “to change the system, not its managers” (Brownson, 1840, p. 14). In a similar vein, Debs was adamantly convinced that only a systemic reorganization of society and its institutions could improve the lot of the working class. He admitted that improvements were still possible within the existing social framework but argued they were of “minor consequence compared to the world’s crying need for industrial and social reorganization” (Debs, 1916, p. 73). Thus, the socialisms of Brownson and Debs alike posited that only comprehensive social change could address the perceived evils of capitalism.
The main difference between socialism as interpreted by these two thinkers was the issue of the specific changes to implement – and, in this case, Debs proved to be more radical than his earlier counterpart. While Brownson derided the capitalist system as a whole and wealth inequality in particular, he sought to address its deficiencies through legislation to better protect the people’s social and economic rights (Carey, 1988). Drawing upon the American distrust toward the banking system in the mid-19th century, he focused specifically on the laws that would curb the influence of financial capital but never criticized private property directly (Brownson, 1840). In contrast, Debs (1916) assaulted this pillar of capitalist society without reservations. According to his – largely Marxist – line of thinking, the private ownership of the means of collective production was “no longer compatible with social progress” and had to be abandoned if humanity was to prosper (Debs, 1916, p. 74). In other words, while Brownson proposed reform, albeit systemic and comprehensive, the changes advocated by Debs were nothing short of revolutionary and struck at the heart of America’s capitalist economy.
The aforementioned limited approach – at least as compared to that of Debs – was an important strength of Brownson’s approach. As long as he did not oppose private property per se and only called for legislative adjustments, his ideas were only a relative rather than an absolute threat to American capitalism. The ideas of legislation improving the status of the working class could – and, during the New Deal, eventually would – be appropriated by the ruling elites if it meant staving off the more radical version of socialism. This feasibility within the American socio-political context was an important advantage. However, Brownson’s (1840) socialism also had significant weakness in the absence of anything remotely resembling a sociological methodology. If anything, he openly admitted having no trust in people of science – “pedagogues,” as he called them – insofar as the creation of a more just society was concerned (Brownson, 1840, p. 14). In other words, Brownson (1840) insisted on a comprehensive and systemic reform of the American society and economy but rejected sociological science that could provide the systemic study of those, and this contradiction was a major weakness of his approach.
The strengths and weaknesses of Debs’s approach to socialism were an inverse reflection of those possessed by Brownson’s version. On the one hand, unlike his earlier counterpart, Debs (1916) had a well-developed sociological foundation in Marxist theory. The notions of social classes, socioeconomic formations, and the struggle for the means of production allowed him to root his approach in a proper sociological theory. In this respect, his systemic approach was well-founded and reflected the need to study society scientifically before attempting to change it. However, Debs’s (1916) Marxist leanings also ensured that his version of socialism would have a hard time winning support in the United States. Debs’s (1916) insistence that “the most important thing for the workingman to recognize is the class struggle” immediately made him an enemy of any private owner of the means of production and any business-affiliated political force (p. 115). While the ruling elite could partially agree to Brownson’s ideas of amending the capitalist economy through social welfare and egalitarian legislation, the official recognition of the class conflict was out of the question. Consequently, those supporting Debs’s socialism could only rely on themselves.
As one can see, there are general similarities between the versions of socialism entertained by Brownson and Debs, but the differences, especially as they pertain to their strength and weaknesses, are more profound. Both authors recognized the extreme social inequalities characteristic of the American capitalist economy in the 19th and early 20th century, and both argued that only systemic changes, as opposed to superficial reforms, could improve the situation. However, the two authors had very different visions of this systemic change. Brownson posited that better legislation specifically designed to safeguard the social and economic rights of the working class would be enough. Debs, on the other hand, was adamantly convinced that no changes within the capitalist system would be sufficient, and the only way to address the inequalities it produced was through abolishing private property on the means of production. Thus, Debs’s approach had the strength of being based on a well-developed sociological theory, but Brownson’s version, although not developed scientifically, was more conceivable for the ruling elite and, therefore, more feasible in the long run.
References
Carey, P. W. (1988). Christian socialism in early Brownson. Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, 99(1/4), 17-27, 29-39.
Brownson, O. A. (1840). The laboring classes, an article from the Boston Quarterly Review (3rd ed.). Benjamin H. Greene.
Debs, E. V. (1916). Labor and freedom: The voice and pen of Eugene V. Debs. Phil Wagner.