{"id":33,"date":"2022-01-31T21:07:47","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T21:07:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/?post_type=back-matter&p=33"},"modified":"2022-03-11T19:27:14","modified_gmt":"2022-03-11T19:27:14","slug":"conclusion","status":"publish","type":"back-matter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/back-matter\/conclusion\/","title":{"rendered":"Conclusion"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nWriting on the May Day riots for the May 10, 1919 issue of Revolutionary Age<\/em>, Ruthenberg expressed optimism in light of the violence perpetrated against his march.\u00a0 Terming the riots the Cleveland workers\u2019 \u201cbaptism in blood,\u201d he saw this violence as yet another event confirming his left-Socialist principles and a chance to more sharply draw the contrast between radicals and the opposing capitalist forces.[footnote]Revolutionary Age<\/em>, May 10, 1919[\/footnote] The worker\u2019s revolution, per Marxist theory, was inevitable and the riots confirmed the revolutionary stirrings in his society.\u00a0 The reason the socialists were met with violent opposition was not because they were insignificant.\u00a0 The loyalists confronted the Cleveland marchers, unlike the years previous and afterwards, because they feared the socialists; one fears the powerful and growing Cleveland Socialists of 1919, not the powerless Cleveland Socialists of 1911 or the fringe Communists of 1930.\u00a0 Social conflict augmented the socialists as Local Cleveland gained more members in May that year, not less.[footnote]Judd, Socialist Cities<\/em>, 171[\/footnote] In light of Local Cleveland\u2019s thriving under stress Ruthenberg concluded his coverage of the riots rallying, \u201cThe Socialist organization remains intact in spite of the destruction of party headquarters\u2026The workers have had their lesson. They have learned how \u2018democracy\u2019 meets a peaceable protest. They know from the thousands who marched that their power is greater than ever. Another day is coming. They will go on until victory is achieved.\u201d[footnote]Ruthenberg, \u201cCleveland May Day Demonstration,\u201d Revolutionary Age<\/em>, May 10, 1919[\/footnote]\u00a0Despite the blood, bruises, prison time, and death, the May Day riots were a cause for celebration: a celebration that the Cleveland radicals had come so far as a political unit and organization that they warranted such treatment.\u00a0 Such counter-revolution could only herald revolution and a further reason to be on the left-wing of American socialism.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe perennial question of all historians of the Socialist Party and leftism in the United States, first asked by the German economist Werner Sombart in 1905, is some version of \u201cWhy did socialism not happen in America?\u201d[footnote]Werner Sombart, Why Is There No Socialism In the United States<\/em>, White Plains: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 190[\/footnote]Of course, the first clarification should be what the question means by \u201csocialism?\u201d\u00a0 Often, the implication is \u201cAmerican Exceptionalism,\u201d an American version of the Sonderweg<\/em> thesis: large \u201csocialist\u201d parties grew in other industrialized nations, but not in the United States.\u00a0 However, this version of the question actually means \u201cOther countries have social-democratic parties, but the U.S. does not,\u201d thereby ignoring the later New Deal Coalition and the development of a Fordist economy in the US, similar to Western Europe.\u00a0 The real question, for which the U.S. was actually an exception to the rest of the industrial world in the early twentieth century, is \u201cWhy did the U.S. never have a large revolutionary-socialist<\/em> political party,\u201d like the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Spartacists in Germany, the anarcho-syndicalists in France and Spain, or the left-wing of the Labour Party in Britain?\u00a0 The case of the Cleveland radicals shows that there was such a movement growing in the U.S., but it was met with the \u201cMay Day riots,\u201d informal violence from counter-revolutionary veterans\u2019 groups, and later the formally-directed Red Scare, most notably the Palmer raids in late 1919 and early 1920.\u00a0 The various answers offered to the question of why there is\/was no \u201csocialism\u201d in the United States have included American workers being inherently non-ideological, the social mobility in the U.S. dissuaded radical opposition of capitalism, the U.S. being an essentially liberal society, the difficulty in building a new political movement in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and the repressive measures taken by the American state in responding to unionizing, strikes, and socialist organizing.[footnote]Critchlow, Heartland<\/em>, 1[\/footnote]Though the truth is most certainly a combination of these, the case of May Day, 1919, in Cleveland adds further force to the \u201csuppression\u201d explanation in this historiographical debate.\u00a0 In response to the question \u201cWhy is there no socialism,\u201d a Cleveland leftist would have responded: \u201cBecause it was killed.\u201d\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\nAside from this central historiographical question, Ruthenberg, the Cleveland radicals, and the May Day riots bring many historical processes into clear focus.\u00a0 They reveal the cultural and intellectual character of the \u201cRed Rioters,\u201d which reflected the foreign-born identity of Cleveland as a city in 1919.\u00a0 They show the beginnings of a veteran culture contested between an anti-radical patriotism of the American Legion and the revolutionary character of the \u201cGreat War veteran\u201d who the socialists hoped would carry the European revolutions stateside.\u00a0 The May Day riots were also the culmination of Midwestern radicalism, of which Ohio served as an epicenter, but Cleveland as its most electorally-impotent, and thus radical, exponent.\u00a0 The riots help to expose two conflicting nationalist projects pulsating through early-twentieth century America: a \u201ccivic-nationalism\u201d of socialism informed by the founding principles of American political culture; and an \u201cethno-nationalism\u201d of anti-immigrant, racialized \u201cAmericanism\u201d that defined itself through anti-Bolshevism, thus making it a novel category in American thought.\u00a0 Finally, a comparison of May Day 1919 to the activities and marches of Cleveland\u2019s radicals during the Great Depression show that the organizational success and socialistic-republicanism of the 1900s and 1910s did not continue: the city\u2019s left could either become fringe Communists, devoted to the Russian example, or accede to the left-liberal trade-unionism of the New Deal society.\u00a0 May Day 1919 did not herald the birth or death of the \u201cCleveland Commune,\u201d nor did it overthrow a bourgeois-republic or monarchy.\u00a0 It was a distinctly American event, riven by the same contradictions that would both end and give rise to the general movements of (inter)national history.\u00a0 All of America was in those streets, in Public Square, in Cleveland, observing and acting for both good and ill.\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

Writing on the May Day riots for the May 10, 1919 issue of Revolutionary Age<\/em>, Ruthenberg expressed optimism in light of the violence perpetrated against his march.\u00a0 Terming the riots the Cleveland workers\u2019 \u201cbaptism in blood,\u201d he saw this violence as yet another event confirming his left-Socialist principles and a chance to more sharply draw the contrast between radicals and the opposing capitalist forces.[1]<\/sup><\/a> The worker\u2019s revolution, per Marxist theory, was inevitable and the riots confirmed the revolutionary stirrings in his society.\u00a0 The reason the socialists were met with violent opposition was not because they were insignificant.\u00a0 The loyalists confronted the Cleveland marchers, unlike the years previous and afterwards, because they feared the socialists; one fears the powerful and growing Cleveland Socialists of 1919, not the powerless Cleveland Socialists of 1911 or the fringe Communists of 1930.\u00a0 Social conflict augmented the socialists as Local Cleveland gained more members in May that year, not less.[2]<\/sup><\/a> In light of Local Cleveland\u2019s thriving under stress Ruthenberg concluded his coverage of the riots rallying, \u201cThe Socialist organization remains intact in spite of the destruction of party headquarters\u2026The workers have had their lesson. They have learned how \u2018democracy\u2019 meets a peaceable protest. They know from the thousands who marched that their power is greater than ever. Another day is coming. They will go on until victory is achieved.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Despite the blood, bruises, prison time, and death, the May Day riots were a cause for celebration: a celebration that the Cleveland radicals had come so far as a political unit and organization that they warranted such treatment.\u00a0 Such counter-revolution could only herald revolution and a further reason to be on the left-wing of American socialism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The perennial question of all historians of the Socialist Party and leftism in the United States, first asked by the German economist Werner Sombart in 1905, is some version of \u201cWhy did socialism not happen in America?\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a>Of course, the first clarification should be what the question means by \u201csocialism?\u201d\u00a0 Often, the implication is \u201cAmerican Exceptionalism,\u201d an American version of the Sonderweg<\/em> thesis: large \u201csocialist\u201d parties grew in other industrialized nations, but not in the United States.\u00a0 However, this version of the question actually means \u201cOther countries have social-democratic parties, but the U.S. does not,\u201d thereby ignoring the later New Deal Coalition and the development of a Fordist economy in the US, similar to Western Europe.\u00a0 The real question, for which the U.S. was actually an exception to the rest of the industrial world in the early twentieth century, is \u201cWhy did the U.S. never have a large revolutionary-socialist<\/em> political party,\u201d like the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Spartacists in Germany, the anarcho-syndicalists in France and Spain, or the left-wing of the Labour Party in Britain?\u00a0 The case of the Cleveland radicals shows that there was such a movement growing in the U.S., but it was met with the \u201cMay Day riots,\u201d informal violence from counter-revolutionary veterans\u2019 groups, and later the formally-directed Red Scare, most notably the Palmer raids in late 1919 and early 1920.\u00a0 The various answers offered to the question of why there is\/was no \u201csocialism\u201d in the United States have included American workers being inherently non-ideological, the social mobility in the U.S. dissuaded radical opposition of capitalism, the U.S. being an essentially liberal society, the difficulty in building a new political movement in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and the repressive measures taken by the American state in responding to unionizing, strikes, and socialist organizing.[5]<\/sup><\/a>Though the truth is most certainly a combination of these, the case of May Day, 1919, in Cleveland adds further force to the \u201csuppression\u201d explanation in this historiographical debate.\u00a0 In response to the question \u201cWhy is there no socialism,\u201d a Cleveland leftist would have responded: \u201cBecause it was killed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Aside from this central historiographical question, Ruthenberg, the Cleveland radicals, and the May Day riots bring many historical processes into clear focus.\u00a0 They reveal the cultural and intellectual character of the \u201cRed Rioters,\u201d which reflected the foreign-born identity of Cleveland as a city in 1919.\u00a0 They show the beginnings of a veteran culture contested between an anti-radical patriotism of the American Legion and the revolutionary character of the \u201cGreat War veteran\u201d who the socialists hoped would carry the European revolutions stateside.\u00a0 The May Day riots were also the culmination of Midwestern radicalism, of which Ohio served as an epicenter, but Cleveland as its most electorally-impotent, and thus radical, exponent.\u00a0 The riots help to expose two conflicting nationalist projects pulsating through early-twentieth century America: a \u201ccivic-nationalism\u201d of socialism informed by the founding principles of American political culture; and an \u201cethno-nationalism\u201d of anti-immigrant, racialized \u201cAmericanism\u201d that defined itself through anti-Bolshevism, thus making it a novel category in American thought.\u00a0 Finally, a comparison of May Day 1919 to the activities and marches of Cleveland\u2019s radicals during the Great Depression show that the organizational success and socialistic-republicanism of the 1900s and 1910s did not continue: the city\u2019s left could either become fringe Communists, devoted to the Russian example, or accede to the left-liberal trade-unionism of the New Deal society.\u00a0 May Day 1919 did not herald the birth or death of the \u201cCleveland Commune,\u201d nor did it overthrow a bourgeois-republic or monarchy.\u00a0 It was a distinctly American event, riven by the same contradictions that would both end and give rise to the general movements of (inter)national history.\u00a0 All of America was in those streets, in Public Square, in Cleveland, observing and acting for both good and ill.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

  1. Revolutionary Age<\/em>, May 10, 1919 ↵<\/a><\/li>
  2. Judd, Socialist Cities<\/em>, 171 ↵<\/a><\/li>
  3. Ruthenberg, \u201cCleveland May Day Demonstration,\u201d Revolutionary Age<\/em>, May 10, 1919 ↵<\/a><\/li>
  4. Werner Sombart, Why Is There No Socialism In the United States<\/em>, White Plains: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 190 ↵<\/a><\/li>
  5. Critchlow, Heartland<\/em>, 1 ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"back-matter-type":[33],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-33","back-matter","type-back-matter","status-publish","hentry","back-matter-type-conclusion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/33","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/back-matter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/33\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":151,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/33\/revisions\/151"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/33\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"back-matter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter-type?post=33"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=33"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/until-victory-is-achieved\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=33"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}