>> next, it history teacher jeffrey johnson talks about the rise at and decline of socialism's popularity in america. c-span tv interviewed him at the american association of historians in providence, rhode island. study of socialism

focuses on the late 19th-century-early 20th century. define socialism for us in that time. were a lot ofhere socialists talking about a broadly. they were wrestling with, how to we come up with systems where distribution could be more fair. more equal. as a lot of socialists were talking about that. it was really crow marx who came along in the 19th century looking at it historically and said there is this march of capitalism and ultimately he believed capitalism had gone awry and was exploitive. thinking about it in terms of the march of history, he believed class struggle would bring about a revolution. for him, it was a revolutionary, immediately kind of socialism than theorists who attacked earlier. this was in response to the

industrial revolution and these ideas from europe started to come to the united states and change the political landscape. .hat was socialism to think about classical society with a more fair, distribution of wealth devoid of capitalism. these were ideas that took a lot the 19th century and through immigrants and others coming to the united states in the late 19th century, it gained some traction. host: how did this manifest itself in american politics? is aster johnson: that good question. it is unique. it started because of the american political landscape. the socialist labor party. 1877, it was almost exclusively german immigrants. that would not surprise us given context of european socialism in the 19th century. bohemian radical marxists who had red marks and brought those ideas to the united states.

the socialist labor party was on the scene in the late 19th century and what is interesting, having done a little bit of research, they held all of their meetings in german so if you did not speak german, you could not really go to an slp meeting and get a lot from that. a were very in line with marxist radical teaching. it was inevitable. on the scene. there was political socialism on the scene. the social democracy of america one was called. the real thing came in 1901 with the establishment of the socialist party of america, which became the kind of permanent socialist party and more inclusive. did not have meetings in german. anybody could join. they were established in indianapolis in 1901. something called the unity convention which they thought

would bring together all of the factions of socialist. socialism took a lot of different forms. unifying as one political party was important. that was in 1901. and somety alternative of my writing, to the democrats and republicans for a party for label. 48 radical labor party. it was on the scene in 1901 with fair success. 15 or 20 years. host: were there any particular areas of the country where socialism was more appealing than others? my research is focused on the pacific northwest. i focused on washington and ohio and western montana. what struck me when i started to poke around was eugene debs, the famous face of american socialism.

the socialist party of america's candidate for president five times. once from inside jail, which is interesting. debs got steadily increasing electoral results with the kind of common aiding moment being in 1912 were nationally he got about 6% of the vote, just shy of one million votes. that is interesting and remarkable in itself. in the northwest, he got almost 10% of the vote so clearly something was happening where regionally there was more interest and emphasis. i argued in my book that really it was the boom and bust economic cycles of the northwest. involved in being the extractive industries there. verytries that could be exploitive of labor. socialists found an attentive audience because these were workers who had it there he tough. long hours, low wages and often

very dangerous work conditions so all of that common aided and higher support in that region in the northwest and that is when i maintain. not to say socialism didn't pop-up up in other pockets. southwest,he milwaukee, wisconsin, which was a hotbed for socialist politics. that there were great in the northwest. host: what set eugene debs apart as a candidate? prof. johnson: he appealed to labor. eugene debs could give a great speech and he knew how to play to the audience. in some ways, socialism at the time might have met -- meant simple answers for complex problems. you did not have to read marks

marx that closely. went to jail and was radicalized there. andound himself radicalized was drawn to social politics but what set him apart was being a great oratory. a red or a titian. he really studied this message. labor was having a hard time. he ultimately emerged as one of the voices of labor. this is not to say others were not important. but he is great latitude with those kind of folks, courting labor and the labor vote. was the high point of the movement? prof. johnson: probably 1912, when eugene debs garnered about 12%.

probably the most of any socialist. striking into important. so, 1912 was probably the high point and i will say there was always this sense for the readlist party, if you pamphlets and newspapers, they always believed the next election would be the big one and they would bring about the final march of socialist a la ticks in the united states. of course, that never happened but the high point was 1912. host: was there any lasting on thece or impact american political system? prof. johnson: i think it was one of the first and most important third-party successes but in terms of great reform successes, i do not think we can point to the debs candidacy win as ae did not result. had he won, i suspect things might have been different it my great,s probably, not a

lasting impact other than the fact there could be dissenting voices and those dissenting voices were important. a tellis a lot about the broad american narrative. i think there was some good that came out of it for the political system. a two-party system and always have. we talked about this yesterday on our panel. it focused on new perspectives and american socialism and that is one of the nice things that comes out of this. challenging the two-party system. eugenen addition to debs, who were the other major players in the socialist party? prof. johnson: someone like victor berger, from milwaukee, wisconsin, a working-class town. he served in congress. was later denied his seat because of world war i and objections to u.s. involvement

in world war i. another person i think is interesting and closer to my research and heart was a man called lewis duncan, the mayor of butte, montana, from 1911-1914. it does not seem like a huge electoral victory, but it was the quintessential mining town and he was able to capitalize on the labor vote and win that election and serve as a pretty productive mayor for those three years in representing the socialist party and labor. so there are those kind of figures that one important elections and served as an example of the possibility of what socialist politics could do. research focuses on late 19th century early 20th century. what happens between then and the present day? ultimately i: not have always argued that world war i helped ring about a pretty quick and to the socialist

party's prominence and that is because the socialist party had argued emphatically against involvement in world war i and to do that would be to be perceived as disloyal so i think that cost the socialist party a lot and those objections were based in marxist thought that all wars were capitalist wars and how could we support those wars when the working class would do the fighting? with the sedition act and the x -- the act known as the red scare, it became a unpopular to be a socialist he waited might have been in 1910 or 1920's and isanswer the question, that something that continues after the russian revolution. if you were red, a socialist or communist, this was not look down favorably.

unfavorably. this helps explain why socialism enters this time of unpopularity. it is not good to be socialist and it has grave consequences. host: how does bernie sanders fit into this history? johnson: this is a good question. nobody was talking about socialism before this and my profession is happy about this. i am not a political scientist, talkingie sanders is about socialism. he calls himself a socialist. put him up against some of the people of the early 20th century, he is in a different camp. in the early 20th century, the divided between dogmatic, revolutionaries, at the time they would call them "reds." ,"en some were called "yellow

much less radical. he is talking about other things, places like in europe that we might consider socialist but he is certainly not the kind of socialist in the way, i think, and who knows if i ask them, but i do not think you would be one in the way of eugene debs or some of the early 20thist of the century. host: professor johnson: thank you very much. president johnson: thank you. announcer: you are watching c-span3, all weekend every weekend on c-span3. conversation, like us on facebook at c-spanhistory. georgetownkend, jacksonr maurice teaches a class on w.e.b. du bois, a civil rights actor and author. here is a preview.

professor jackson: so he challenged that idea, which is to go slow, the best way to establish a difference is this dudley the great poet randall. he wrote it at the height of the black power movement. >> what is he saying there?

it is a struggle between industrial education and advanced education. thiseally du bois took on -- watch the entire program tonight at midnight here on american history tv. tv. on c-span3 next, a panel of scholars discusses the evolution of american political philosophy through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. they concentrate on the ideologies of john stuart mill, david hume, john dewey, and jane adams. the discussion was part of a daylong symposium at grand valley state university in grand rapids, michigan. it's about an hour. >> so much of this summit is concerned with the electoral history of progressivism and conservatism. many of our speakers asked how the ideas and arguments of major political thinkers have made their way into the cultural conversation.