Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AAREVALO00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This is a wikification and npov adaptation of my Senior report on Socialism. (For those interested, the original version is available on my talk page at User:LockeShocke/Why_did_Socialism_fail_in_early_20th_century_America, but the changes are mostly cosmetic.) I put up this page at the request of User:Sj.

To Do
 * Decide whether inserts about President Obama are a) allowed and b) allowed to be edited anonymously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emathias (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to this page from History of Socialism. Right now this page is an orphan.
 * Summarize this page on Socialism, add a History section to that article, and add a Main Article: History of Socialism tag at the top.
 * NPOV review. I have probably missed a couple words.
 * Add history past 1920. I know for a fact it's still an official party, and there have probably been some important events in the last 80-odd years.
 * Wikify References section with ISBN numbers, etc.
 * Make endnotes actual superscripts and not just regular script

Thanks, and keep contributing! LockeShocke 21:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Text removed from social democracy
I've removed this text from Social democracy because I felt that it didn't belong there. Having seen the article, it looks as though it doesn't really add anything new here, so I'll just post it here and if anybody finds it useful, feel free to factor it into the text. Slac speak up!  08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''==Social Democratic Parties in the United States==

There have been many socialist and social democratic parties in American history, most notably the Socialist Party of America whose best known leaders were Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas and the Socialist Labor Party of America led by Daniel DeLeon, but they have been less successful than their European counterparts. In the 1970s the Socialist Party of America split into three factions, the Democratic Socialists of America led by Michael Harrington, the Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.

Today, the United States Green Party, with 2 to 4 percent of the vote in presidential elections, might be seen as the largest non-capitalist party and has the support of many American socialists. With the 2000 Ralph Nader campaign arguably having cost the Democrats the election, the Democratic Party, which has moved away from welfare state policies under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, is under pressure to adopt some social democratic measures in its platform (such as universal health care). Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are particularly strong advocates of such a revision of the Democratic position.''


 * What a hateful and bias edit. It looks like a 9th grader rewrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.37.178 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is in serious need of npov work. Taking most of this information from a source such as Howard Zinn makes the entire article suspicious. Zinn is himself a socialist and is unreliable as an objective source, especially regarding this subject. Words such as "oppression" and "prejudice" are clearly not NPOV. --Bayyoc 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So I assume that the above commentator would want an article on "free market capitalism" not to be written by a mainstream economist since such an economist obviously accepts that such an outlook on economic life is valid, beneficial and scientifically "natural"? July 2006


 * Have you read any of the articles on capitalism, globalization etc, the viewpoint of socialist's, antiglobalizationist, etc are well represented. Regardless this is the history of socialism in the US, not an article on how the mechanics of socialism work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrone (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the particular uses of "oppression" -- only in one subsection -- and "prejudice -- except for maybe the last use in reference to Congress -- are not as grossly POV as one would think. As well, after a scan, most of the Zinn quotes are somewhat benign, for example, detailing the composition of the party, quoting Debs, or reporting the number of people that gathered in the streets. LockeShocke 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee Sewer Socialism
Milwaukee was the first US city to ever elect a socialist mayor. He had office for more that 20 years. There were hundreds of other socialists in the city board. There is what, one or two sentences about them in th Milwaukee article and there's nothing about them in here. I don't know enough about them to write them in, but perhaps someone does? The Person Who Is Strange 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Sewer Socialism or List of mayors of Milwaukee.  Royal  Mate1  00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Move?
I'm about to move this article to Socialist movement in the United States. The United States has never been socialist so there has never been "Socialism in the United States." Most of the article focuses on the socialist movement. Only the very last section makes any reference to the United States actually being socialist or socialistic, and this section does not have much relevance to the larger issues discussed in the article. Any thoughts on the move?--Bkwillwm 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a separate issue here. The establishment of the income tax, family courts, and social security were de facto socialistic implementations and should be addressed. Socialists do not like to call the USA socialistic, because then it would shed light once again on the failures of the idea. Jcchat66 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but, then again, there has never been Liberalism in China or Secularism in Pakistan, having an ism at the end dosen't mean it was ever in effect, so I think Socialism in the United States is a better title. Charles Essie (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No the Socialist MOVEMENT is a political Marxist movement (with few legislative accomplishments).. SOCIALISM is a much broader term that includes actual legislation by liberals, of the sort the conservatives complain about. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

1920
pretty sad how socialism ended in the 1920s and how selfish people have become since then


 * Would you care to elaborate? Socialism actually went into practice after this year, not before. Large corporations formed in the late 1800's beginning with the railroad companies, and the dramatic increase in government management and selling of land to large corporations. The New Deal and the emergence of Social Security also marked an increase in socialism in the US. Jcchat66 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Discussion
I'm kinda disappointed after having seen this article. I came looking for what may be considered traces of socialism in our government today, yet found a more historic approach regarding the early history of socialism in the U.S. Recent events were barely, if at all, mentioned.

Could someone please volunteer and add this info to the article?

Abel 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Recent events and trends towards socialism are stronger than ever, and yet not mentioned here. We could find plenty of right-wing websites for citations ... but I'd rather not. Surely there is a more academic approach to the question of modern US socialism? Or have all universities been overrun by peer pressure? Jcchat66 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Socialism's ties to labor
As written, the article as a whole emphasizes the SP, the SLP, and their political methods over the IWW and other groups adopting economic methods, without even covering the debates, or their organizational consequences. Jacob Haller 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Labour Project assessment
The article is generally comprehensive, well-written and of appropriate length to be B-class. While I would like to rate it High in Importance, the article lacks enough recent evidence (e.g., doesn't really go past the 1920s) to justify that. The focus of the labor section is on the IWW and Palmer Raids, doesn't discuss the Social Democrat movement of the 1960s and 1970s, doesn't discuss major rifts between conservatives and socialists in labor in the 1940s and 1950s, etc. So, Mid importance is all I can justify. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Socialist movement durign the Great Depression
Since expanding this article beyond 1920 has been considered an important part of this article's to do lists, I think it would be best for any interested editors to start gathering sources on socialist movements during the Great Depression. From my own cursory knowledge and my hazy memory of the subject, I know that some subjects of interest would be the (temporary) resurgence of the Socialist Party of America and how it related to the Great Depression. But, for the most part, the primary agent of action in the American socialist movement would have been the Communist Party USA, along with communist influence in the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I know Zinn's A People's History of the United States would be a good place to start. I've recently procured a copy, so I'll get working on a rough draft for a new section.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Karl Marx
There is no need to have this photo of Marx. Marx was not an American Socialist. Marx is a polarizing, controversial figure in socialism. Throughout the history of socialism, many socialists have disagreed with him. Socialism is not the same as Marxism. I have moved Marx's photo to Socialism.Tova Hella (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary information in Political Oppression section
In the Political Oppression section it reads:

"In June 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage Act,[16] which included a clause providing prison sentences for up to twenty years for “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty… or willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment of service of the United States”.[15] The Socialists, with their talk of draft dodging and war-opposition, found themselves the target of persecution. Scores were convicted of treason and jailed. "

That whole section, as well as this paragraph, stinks of bias. Is the author suggesting that laws which forbid draft dodging and sedition have anything to do with socialists specifically? If so then the argument here is that these laws were set up to persecute socialism and not to strengthen the war effort. Thus by extension of that argument, one could say that the war itself was waged to persecute socialism in America. On that logic I could say that those laws were made to persecute all pacifists, not just socialism, and even that more generalized version of this argument would be a bold lie. Why is this sitting on the page unchallenged? There are no sources to indicate half the information in there, the other half is obviously steering the reader in a direction sympathetic to the subject matter and away from factuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is falsehood in the same section, " Aside from the military, the Socialists would meet harsh political opposition as well when exercising their First Amendment right. " The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Espionage Act did not violate anyone's First Amendment rights in jailing them under the provisions of the bill. see Schenck v. United States. Now whether the Supreme Court were right or wrong, one cannot say that his First Amendment rights were violated if the highest court in the land (interpreter of law) ruled that not to be the case. Delete the Political Oppression section entirely until a valid, properly sourced section is written.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 April 2010


 * The section does not say the act was passed to specifically target socialists. Modern legal opinion is that the act violated the Bill of Rights.  TFD (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you haven't read the section then. The first line claims it to be the case and modern legal opinion was not cited as a source for that opinion. The section is rhetoric and the sources come from Howard Zinn. This is far from unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph begins, "Aside from the military, the Socialists would meet harsh political opposition as well when exercising their First Amendment right." Even American conservatives today support that statement.  Do you have any alternative sources that discuss this period?  TFD (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled that Espionage Act was not a violation of that right. As this is what the paragraph focuses upon, the intended meaning is clear. An alternative source is irrelevant to the issue of the current source lacking in credibility. The second paragraph goes on to say "The Socialists, with their talk of draft dodging and war-opposition, found themselves the target of persecution."  It can't be any more clear. The section reads that the socialists were the target, that the acts and laws following WWI, were tools of persecution against their specific group. There is just no source present to indicate that. see Schenck v. United States for any legal opinion on the matter, unless you know of a case in which that unanimous ruling was struck down.

Aside from that, what does it matter what "American Conservatives", or "American Liberals" or any other ideological platform thinks? I personally do not agree with the Espionage Act but that's irrelevant to the issue of a completely biased section. --Napkin65 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is the section represents an uncontroversial view. If you disagree with it please provide a source.  TFD (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I need a source to show that this section clearly biased? You're not even arguing substance because you know it can't be won. If I write on a page that the moon is made of cheese, you shouldn't need moon rock samples to see that its an inept statement with serious credibility problems. The burden of proof falls to the person who wrote the section to begin with, thus far there has been nothing credible or lacking POV written here.--Napkin65 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you need a source that explains these events differently from the way they are presented. If you did write that the moon was made of green cheese, and sourced it, then I could refute it with a source explaining the composition of the moon.  OTOH if you wanted to change the moon article to say that it is made of green cheese, then you would have to find a source for that.  See WP:Verifiability:  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true".  TFD (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And my challenge is that Howard Zinn is not reliable source. Citing "modern legal opinion" whatever that is, not a verifiable source. I'll give you a source that refutes his statements one by one. Schenck v. United States. You know the source that I've already cited 3 times? The Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of rights in the US, unanimously agreed that their 1st Amendment rights were not violated. Their 1st Amendment rights have the same limits as all the others, they crossed the same line. The case Schenck v. United States, which I have posted repeatedly shows exactly where those limits are. Thus Zinn has been refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Howard Zinn is a reliable, verifiable secondary source. Your own interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling is not. RolandR (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Zinn is an avowed socialist, hardly unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. My "interpretation" of the Supreme Court case is just the ruling of it. Its the Supreme Court's interpretation. Somehow, I think the Supreme Court better qualified to discern what is a violation one's rights better than Howard Zinn. Where does Howard Zinn verify that the socialist's (and specifically them) 1st Amendment right was directly violated? Does his mysterious source override the ruling of the court? There is not even a dissenting opinion among the Justices for me to misinterpret. This section is an abomination. Furthermore, the SC is a primary source on the issue, not a secondary one.--Napkin65 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly; and Wikipedia policy is that "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." [[User:RolandR|RolandR (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe you could retitle the section "political oppression as viewed by Howard Zinn" because that's what it is. Google yourself a news article about the Schenk v US and you'll have you secondary source that fully and completely overrides Howard Zinn. This section is utter bullshit, plain and simple.--Napkin65 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While you are entitled to your opinions, the purpose of the talk page is to improve articles, not to engage in political debate. TFD (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I referred explicitly to the removal of that section on the grounds of POV and factual inaccuracy, in every post I've made on this talk page. Thats called improving the article, if you didn't know. Unless of course you think wouldn't improve the article to be factually accurate and lacking blatant POV violations.--Napkin65 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

After 1920
Responding to numerous complaints/suggestions, I imported text from the American Left article, covering 1920-2011. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the socialist movement in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the socialist movement in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "carson": From Dyer Lum:  From Anarchism in the United States: Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move Canada, leave the rest :: no consensus in 56 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

– The current titles are needlessly long, these are more straightforward. --Relisted. walk victor falktalk 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * History of the socialist movement in the United States → Socialism in the United States
 * History of the socialist movement in Brazil → Socialism in Brazil
 * History of the socialist movement in Canada → Socialism in Canada
 * History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom → Socialism in the United Kingdom
 * Perhaps "History of Socialism in ..."? The article are supposed to be about past developments, not present scenarios, I presume. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, pretty much all articles about specific ideologies in individual countries are always mostly about the history of the ideology in that country and they don't use "History of..." in their titles (Conservatism in the United States, Anarchism in Russia, ect.) Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support all. Case well made, query well answered. Tempted to close and move but maybe it's better to remove any ambiguity in the poll, and I can't do both obviously. Andrewa (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by ambiguity? Charles Essie (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. The topics Socialist Movement in XYZ and Socialism in XYZ are very different topics. The second deals with policies that may or may not have originated with the movement.  The Socialist POLICIES  (in terms of welfare state) in Germany originated with Bismarck, the conservative leader. Likewise New Deal policies were sponsored by Democrats  not members of the Socialist Movement. Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely, a welfare state is not inherently socialist, that system has been promoted by politicians, political movements and ideologies that are explicitly anti-socialist, you mentioned Bismarck had a welfare state, but he implemented the Anti-Socialist Laws, in the US factions of the Democratic and Republican parties (both of which are anti-socialist) have advocated welfare states, it's not socialism unless it's called socialism by those advocating it. Charles Essie (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "it's not socialism unless it's called socialism by those advocating it." No -- Wikipedia depends on independent reliable sources--it's what THEY call socialism that matters, not the rhetoric of activists. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any "reliable sources" that refer to legislation by the Democratic Party as socialist, that's extremely POV. Charles Essie (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a move of History of the socialist movement in Canada → Socialism in Canada as a reasonably accurate reflection of that article's content. Oppose the other three which are straight history articles.  The proposed titles do not accurately reflect these articles' contents.  I would support a move to "History of Socialism in ..." if others agree.  I also support the creation of new articles on "Socialism in ..." since the current articles are already quite long.  —  AjaxSmack   01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the Canada one and rescope and move the others Red Slash 02:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd be okay with creation of new main articles on socialism in the above countries, but I don't think it's necessary, we could just alter the above articles to make them more general. Charles Essie (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have amended my !vote. Red Slash</b> 02:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Socialism in the United States and Socialist movement in the United States are probably about the same topic; but "History of" is, well, a subarticle of its parent article. The current article seems to be primarily a "history of". While I wouldn't oppose a move of this to the History of socialism in the United States, if we want to have a dedicated Socialism in the United States article (where I agree socialism is a better and shorter way of saying socialist movement), the correct procedure should be a split, not a move. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work for me. Charles Essie (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So it seems like the consensus here is move the Canadian one and split and move the American one, if anyone has any opinions about the British and Brazilian ones, speak now, if not, I say we go ahead with moving. Charles Essie (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move of Canada one (and US one if you like), and rescope then move the rest: This is a completely routine shortening of unnecessarily blathery, pedantic titles. If/when an article on "Socialism in X" becomes so long and complicated that a history section in it  to summary-style split out,  we could use a separate history article.  Even in that case it should be "History of socialism in X".  The long titles are a WP:NPOV & WP:ADVOCACY problem, focusing on socialism as a  of import instead of one political philosophy among many. (We're so used to this pseudo-academic buzzwording from the left that it almost seems normal, until you invert it and imagine a History of the capitalist movement in the United States article. Oh, yeah, doesn't seem right, do it?  Anyway, for any case where we have both these articles and "Socialism in X" articles already, consider merging them.  There's a good chance someone is jumping the gun on WP:SUMMARY. Way better to re-scope these articles and have them be not as complete as we'd ideally want, for "Xocialism in X" than move them to "History of socialism in {var|X}} and create pointless stubs at "Socialism in X" for no reason.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support all . With the exception of a reverted cut and paste move to the Canada article in 2007 none of the targets have any significant history, so there's nothing at all we need to preserve there. As SMcCandlish says, best to rescope these articles more broadly and, if and when people find the time, split off more detailed articles on aspects of socialism and the socialist movement in these countries. But unlike SMcC, I see no benefit in delaying any of these moves. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology, I voted twice... surprised nobody picked me up on it. At least I was consistent... {;-> and the new discussion points are valid I think too. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consistent Periodization
The § on the 80's and 90s needs a title like "Reemergence of Anarchism and Eastbloc collapse" but there's nothing about the latter, which even if American Socialism was oblivious to it (which it wasn't) that would need to be noted (easily sourced from the usual suspects ). Lycurgus (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also there needs to be some expression of the fact that American Socialism has repeatedly shown itself to be utterly incapable of responding to events in an effective way. It's zenith was in the American Progressive era, and none of the Great Depression, the cultural revolution of the sixties, the 2008 collapse of markets, Occupy, etc., were opporunities that affected its generally feckless character. This &sect; is a good place for the start of that, maybe one sentence, another in that with Senator Sanders noting the recovery of the system with its identity ploy (Obama/fake left) and recovery at a new and higher level of inequity/exploitation, the dissipation of Occupy, etc. Elsewhere, such events have resulted in real change, opportunities seized, so it's noteworthy that this hasn't happened here. Maybe even a whole &sect; on subjective factor. Lycurgus (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the socialist movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070301114534/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=5896151564855675002&q=anarchism+in+america&hl=en to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5896151564855675002&q=Anarchism+in+America&hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of the socialist movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121192030/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Reactions_of_left/Bio_of_Macdonald.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Reactions_of_left/Bio_of_Macdonald.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007005833/https://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=540&SearchTerm=Marx to http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=540&SearchTerm=Marx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123103313/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006215351/https://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=538&SearchTerm=farming+communes to http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=538&SearchTerm=farming+communes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117203844/http://dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d13Whole.pdf to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d13Whole.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728083646/http://www.semainedelavie.ca/en/archives/2007/chaine_vie.htm to http://www.semainedelavie.ca/en/archives/2007/chaine_vie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222031953/http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos21743.html to http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos21743.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the socialist movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=538&SearchTerm=farming%20communes
 * Added tag to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d11Khan.pdf
 * Added tag to http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fendehors.net%2Fnews%2Fcommunes-communautes-milieux-libres&title=pr%C3%A9sentation%20en%20ligne
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927131121/http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc to http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5896151564855675002&q=Anarchism%20in%20America&hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Left which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

21st Century
This text paragraph seems dubious by not mentioning by name the author of said quote and reads almost like an advertisement: "In an interview by The New Labor Forum, a DSA member testifies "I have basically been a lifelong liberal who has very slowly radicalized and was kind of catapulted into radicalization by the Bernie primary campaign. I really didn't know about the term democratic socialism until Bernie started using it".[262] These organizations like the DSA are leading a movement that is giving voice to left-wing positions, emphasizing issues such as affordable housing, universal health care, opposing public subsidies for corporations, seeking the creation of government-owned banks, environmental justice, and free college for all."--Carbonheat (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Second Red Scare is a redirect
A redirect is not a main page. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Communism Socialism?

 * I do not know US customs, but there were fights between Communists and Social-Democrats in Germany before 1933. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lists of organisations are integrated as texts. I would prefer lists or tables. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Melhoras no conteúdo
Seria uma boa traduzir este artigo como es:Socialismo en Estados Unidos? SDS. 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:F585:C48E:EEBC:F01E (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)