Author |
Message |
Robot_Ron
|
Post Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:00 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 12:00 am Posts: 109
Website: http://www.myspace.com/8172315
WLM: [email protected]
AOL: Fite+Mashine
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
|
The US Socialist Party as it existed from about 1900 to about 1920 was much more radical and Marxist in nature than the European socialist parties were. Compared to the third parties that exist today, the Socialist Party was pretty successful; for example, in the 1920 election the Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs was in prison for violating the Sedition Act, but he still got about 1,000,000 votes, which was about 5% of the vote, I think. I'd like to see Nader or Badnarik do that well while incarcerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passiflora
|
Post Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:23 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 12407
Location: The things, they hurt
|
There I must defer to you on your knowledge of US history. The only bit I did in school was The Great Depression. :) British system.
|
|
|
|
|
caffeine
|
Post Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:21 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2341
Location: Smack bang in the middle of Europe
|
It depends which European socialist parties you're talking about Ron. Parties that actually got into government either started out as, or in the case of parties like the SPD, became less radical; but we had and have radical, marxist parties capable of getting 5% or more of the vote. At the same time the Labour party was growing; the Communist party got two seats in Parliament over here. Look around Europe today, and we still have radical minor parties capable of winning seats in various parliaments (the PCF, the Left Party, Communist Refoundation etc. etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|