Channels, Spring 2017

P age 48 Schwartz • Inspiration or Distraction? James P. Cannon’s thesis in Eugene V. Debs Speaks is that, “In Debs, the movement finally found a man who really spoke the language of the country and who knew how to explain the imported idea of socialism,” but that “the history of American socialism in the first two decades of the [20 th ] century was a double story.” Thus, Debs was both an emotional and intellectual leader of the first order, the exact man the party needed in America due to his personable and loving nature, his perseverance, and his powerful, experienced mind. Nevertheless, “the official actions and policies of the party,” were not in accordance with Debs’ vision due to the facts that America was not yet in a revolutionary situation, that Debs was not as involved or effective an organizer in the Socialist Party as he should have been, and that there were self-seeking figures within the Party who were willing to take up Debs’ abandoned mantle for their own benefit. Thus, while “Debs’ mistaken theory of the party was one of the most costly mistakes a revolutionist ever made,” this is the only way he can be criticized, and the success of his movement was the only thing lacking in Debs’ profile as a uniquely great man, according to Cannon. Frederick Gamst takes a similar view in his article “Eugene V. Debs: ‘A Dedication to Unpopularity,’” not claiming that Debs is without faults, but concluding strongly that he was an impactful, even great, figure in American history. Gamst goes so far as to say that Debs “paved the way for Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal” and that even in defeat, Debs forced the government to act, accomplishing his goal to diminish the influence of big business. Thus, one perspective often taken towards Debs is that although he was imperfect and was undercut by the forces of the day and his own potential allies, he remains a strong and effective leader who had a powerful, positive impact on the course of American history. Professor of History Ray Ginger’s thesis is that “Debs deserved little credit for whatever was worthy about his motives” and “On the accuracy of [his socialist ideology] must rest the ultimate worth of his career.” This ideology is described critically by Ginger in saying that “the common people were being crucified by an outmoded economic system.” With a century of hindsight, historians can see the rapid advances in technology, standard of living, and human rights in capitalist countries next to violent, oppressive poverty throughout much of the rest of the world, revealing that Debs’ ideology was clearly flawed. Further, Ginger notes that Debs’ contemporaries were critical of his personal morality that was later romanticized into near-sainthood, pointing to his prison sentence, his praise of Soviet Russia, and other various behaviors such as “drinking sprees” and “coarse and indiscriminate humor.” Debs is seen as directly responsible for the failure of his movement since he established the agenda of the party, led its operations, and embodied its spirit. His charm and appeal were not universal and cannot whitewash the ideological instability, organizational errors, and political ineffectiveness which characterized Eugene Debs. The chief scholar on Debs, Bernard Brommel, delves deeply into the ways in which these facets of Debs’ persona disrupted the Socialist Party of America in his piece “Debs’ Cooperative Commonwealth Plan for Workers.” The work recounts Debs’ actions from 1897 to 1901, the period in which he was concerned with colonizing a western state with socialists. Brommel unveils the way in which Debs constantly changed focuses, disrupting the party