I am a sucker for history - the good, bad and ugly. First of all, this is a well-written, well-documented story that is equal parts history and agitprop. The author, a "former" communist (the prefix is now a requisite), attempts to give a definitive history of Leftist politics in this nation. That is - and this ia a big "That is" - if you assign to a variety of historical national impulses the term "left".

The author stresses that Socialism is not an alien movement but is as patriotic as Old Glory and in one sense he is right. American Socialism never advocated the type of authoritarianism found elsewhere when Socialism was imposed - whether in the USSR, Africa, Asia or Cuba. Western Socialists refused to address the major problem - someone must persuade citizens who do not want the "benefits" of Socialism and this must be done through the use of force. The book is best in the historical sagas, worst in its ideological cant: good reading / bad pleading.

It may have been a native movement but it ran against the grain of America's historical preference of tradition and experience over newness and theory. For a while it seemed that a genuine movement was eminent but, according to Weinstein, events always intervened and set back the movement. Socialism was unsuccessful in America for four reasons that the author discusses in varying degrees of detail:

(1) Socialism's adherants were permanently temporary. The poor got wealth, students alienated the middle class, farmers hated state control and unions rejected the idea leaving academia - the one place that still takes Socialism seriously.
(2) Socialism was morally discredited due to its fervent support of Stalin and other dicatatorships. We hear again about how the the USSR didn't practice "true" Socialism.
(3) Socialism became synonymous with poverty because, well, all Socialist states remained poor and that is not a vision to which Americans aspire.
(4) Socialism never offered a viable alternative that insured wealth, choice, opportunity and a positive vision of the future. Its negative agenda (looting and redistributing wealth, control of production, implementation of social engineering schemes) were rejected out of hand.

As my former professor used to say, you have provided a lot of answers but no solution. To counter capitalism's argument that you can work and gain wealth, Socialism offers the appeal of an egalitarian society - where some are more equal than others. It did not work in the past and will probably not work in the future