So I just wrote an academic research paper on 19th century communes and I believe I have a little bit of insight on this. This is a little bit earlier than the time frame you mentioned but still relevant. Many press newspapers were anti-commune. The Fountain Lake commune in Northern California had a belief system called Theo-Socialism and, despite the fact that they did not in fact preach celibacy, many newspapers reported that they did. Their founder then proceeded to have something of a sex scandal and was ridiculed by the press all over the state for non-existent hypocrisy [1] The “Home” commune in the Puget Sound area also died in a brutal way after many members were arrested in the for being “pacifist Mexican anarchists” (A patently false charge). [2] Some other commune actually did have serious pacifist or anarchist leanings and those communes, like Zoarists or Harmonists, were viewed as dangerous radicals by the press. Finally, strange religious beliefs often contributed greatly to public opinions of communists and socialists. The New York Times consistently covered the Oneida Commune in Upstate New York with negative language regarding their sexual practice of free love (everyone has sex with everyone else basically). [3] This all contributed to a major red scare in 1919, especially after socialism and communism were identified with a Bolshevik Russia that left the war with Germany. Laws and raid were passed and carried out by Woodrow Wilson, Congress, and Edgar J. Hoover that targeted anarchists, socialists and communists. All this, along with the basic contradictions between the amorphous idea of an “American Dream” that many immigrants were attracted to and the socialist and communists ideals, contributed to preventing Americans from being interested in those radical ideologies.

[1] Hine, Robert V. California’s Utopian Colonies. 1966 ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953.

[2] Le Warne, Charles Pierce. Utopias on Puget Sound 1885-1915. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1975.

[3] Utica Herald. “The Break-Up of the Oneida Community.” The New York Times (New York, NY), January 2, 1881, 12. Accessed February 19, 2017. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1881/01/02/98908567.html?pageNumber=12. The New York Times (New York, NY). “The Oneida Community: A Concession to Society.” August 1879, 1. Accessed February 19, 2017. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1879/08/29/81760218.html?pageNumber=1.

Noyes, John Humphrey. Male Continence. Oneida, N.Y.: The Oneida Community, 1872. Accessed February 26, 2017. http://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/m/MaleContinence-51k/

N.B. this is my first time posting in this subreddit, and although I did read the rules, I am unsure if I followed them correctly and I am sorry if I did not.

edit: Grammar

​ I just wrote a paper on this if you're still interested!

The period from 1945 to 1985 in the United States was one of unprecedented change. Following the conclusion of World War 2 the United States was left in a situation unique to the rest of the world where it was left in relative economic health as well as the fact that none of the war was fought on its continental home front. The United States shifted from isolationist to internationalist and began its transition from an industrial to a post-industrial economy. Domestically speaking the U.S underwent major changes in respect to social welfare programs and its approach to equality and civil rights. The post-war United States, vehemently anti-communist in its policies enacted many socialist programs, seemingly against the values of western democracies, designed to protect and better the lives of its citizens. As economic dominance waned over the course of decades, so too did support for social programs and liberal social agendas. In the post-war times, a country that was fiscally liberal and morally conservative began a slow transition to the exact opposite conditions. By the 1980’s the country saw the birth of economic and political New-Conservatism while at the same time liberal rights and pursuits dominated the social landscape. The reasons for this major double transition are because of three key points: the first being that the socialist policies of the post war period did not equally represent women and minority groups, the horrific mismanagement of the Vietnam War and finally when the United States economy began to slow social welfare and liberal economic policy was scapegoated as the reasons behind economic slowdown.

As major participants in the war, the United States could have been left in a similar state of physical and economic destruction as the rest of the other global powers involved in the conflict. The reality was that the United States emerged from World War 2 relatively unscathed. The entire war was fought far away from the domestic United States. As a product of its minimal physical damage the United States was afforded economic opportunities unavailable to other global superpowers. The United States could not only have influence on the political restructuring of the world but also have equity in the rebuilding of many of its allies. The United States profited tremendously by supporting the allied powers and redeveloping Japan. The United States government could also pass almost all domestic and monetary policy it saw fit, as it was experiencing unprecedented levels of bipartisan accord. A previously isolationist country with moderate economic successes was given a golden ticket to develop itself into a global superpower and that is exactly what its government sought to pursue. The United States was built upon the notion of liberty for all and empowerment of its people to pursue their dreams without limitations. 19th century continental American expansion was justified under the notion of the manifest destiny, while the concept of ‘American Exceptionalism’ justified further American pursuits around the world. The mental and spiritual propensity for America to switch from isolationist to internationalist existed, but it took until the conditions of the post World War 2 global theatre for the United States to really act upon these conditions. The United States adopted liberal internationalism as a foreign policy and focused on containing Soviet Expansionism with the Policy of Containment. Communism as an ideological counter the United States united much of America under its government. Support for the ideals of American freedom and the spread of democracy throughout the world meant that the United States federal government could amass more power than it ever had before. This domestic power directly translated into the United States ability to expand its influence over the rest of the world.

In terms of economic liberalism the United States government, under the guise of FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’, and following the footsteps of the New Deal, moved the direction of the federal government into one of multifaceted support for its people. Over 200 billion dollars worth of war bond matured following the conclusion of World War 2, while the G.I bill also contributed to a well-educated and well-funded work force. The United States economy flourished and increased tax revenue meant that the United States could finance its lofty public works and social services bills and projects. Labor Unions became a defining representation of the U.S labor force and developed into strong healthy protections for much of the labor force. The average American was very content with the United States current state of affairs because they were being well paid and their countries government appeared to be high functioning and flourishing as well.

One thing to notice is that I'm just not sure it's accurate to say that the working class turned on unions "after the 1930's". If you look at the Gallup polling on the subject, you'll see the high point for union support nationally was actually in the 1950's and 60's, not the 1930's.

The high point for American socialism was not necessarily the high point for American unionism. Many of the unionists, including the radical ones like United Mine Worker's John Lewis, were known as "liberals" rather than "socialists". It seems like these elements were particularly well incorporated in what many socialists called the post-War "fordist" order.

You may be interested in Seymour Lipset and Gary Marks's recent book It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States (Lipset is possibly the single most important political sociologist of the last hundred years). A part of it is available from the Hoover Institution, as "How FDR Saved Capitalism". They talks about both the leftward shift in the 1930's:

Powerful leftist third-party movements emerged in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York. In other states, radicals successfully advanced alternative political movements by pursuing a strategy of running in major-party primaries. In California, Upton Sinclair, who had run as a Socialist for governor in 1932 and received 50,000 votes, organized the End Poverty in California (EPIC) movement, which won a majority in the 1934 Democratic gubernatorial primaries. He was defeated after a bitter business-financed campaign in the general election, though he secured more than 900,000 votes (37 percent of the total). By 1938, former EPIC leaders had captured the California governorship and a U.S. Senate seat.

[...]National surveys suggest that the leftward shift in public opinion during the 1930s was even more extensive than indicated by third-party voting or membership in radical organizations. Although large leftist third parties existed only in Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin, three Gallup polls taken between December 1936 and January 1938 found that between 14 and 16 percent of those polled said they would not merely vote for but “would join” a Farmer-Labor Party if one was organized. Of those interviewees expressing an opinion in 1937, 21 percent voiced a readiness to join a new party.

One thing to note here is that the socialism popular in American often had a very agrarian character to it--notice that many of the parties that did form were "Farmer-Labor" parties. Minnesota's version notably formally merged with the Democratic Party in 1944 such that the Minnesota state affiliate of the nation Democratic Party is officially the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.

Marks and Lipset argue that a separate socialism failed in America in large part because the Democrats succeeded in incorporating many of the socialists' most popular demands into their own platform and by getting many of the active socialists "on his team" through things like the Federal Writers' Project and other parts of the Works Progress Administration:

If the Great Depression, with all its attendant effects, shifted national attitudes to the left, why was it that no strong radical movement committed itself to a third party during these years? A key part of the explanation was that President Roosevelt succeeded in including left-wing protest in his New Deal coalition. He used two basic tactics. First, he responded to the various outgroups by incorporating in his own rhetoric many of their demands. Second, he absorbed the leaders of these groups into his following. These reflected conscious efforts to undercut left-wing radicals and thus to preserve capitalism.

The whole Lipset and Marks piece is quite short, but I think reading it will give more insight into what exactly happened in the 1930's and how FDR helped create a liberal capitalism that undercut many of the more radically anti-system socialist claims.

Followup question, did the unions/communist party have any international connections before that, and how did they evolve during this time?

World War II had a dramatic impact on the US labor movement, and while I wouldn't say that the working class turned on unions, there certainly was a fear of socialist elements within labor.

During the depression, labor unions (including the more radical left-wing elements of the labor movement) had become significantly stronger, both as a result of political forces (the Wagner Act, for example) and economic forces. They were able to organize strikes and other protests, which helped increase unionization, promoted workers' rights, and developed an active labor movement.

Once the war began, there was a nationwide patriotism and industrial mobilization, and it was seen as unpatriotic to stop work or strike. Conflicts were instead settled though bureaucratic systems of grievance resolution, which resulted in a wider gulf between union rank and file members and their leadership. At the same time, the post-war US saw a rise in anti-communist sentiment with the beginning of the Cold War, and many left wing elements of the labor movement were forced out. Both of these factors, coupled with the fact that the US economy was strong and had little international competition, essentially 'tamed' the American labor movement.

I would recommend "Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement" by Rick Fantasia and Kim Voss, and Howard Kimeldorf's piece, “WWII and the Deradicalization of Labor: The ILWU as a Deviant Case" for more reading.

Followup. Did the Democrat's embrace of more liberal / progressive ideologies in the 1960s/70s, such as women's rights and abortion drive a wedge between them and blue collar unionized workers?

One book that I would recommend for this subject is Jefferson Cowie's Stayin' Alive. This book covers a lot of issues in the 1970's, but the first chapter really harps in on what changed from the 50's and 60's when there was record support for unions and the 1970's when the effectiveness of and support for unions started it's dramatic decline.

A lot of the responses have focused on how the New Deal Democrats coopted socialist ideas after 1932. But socialism was weak in the US before the Great Depression too, at least compared to Europe (but maybe not compared to Canada and Australia? I don't know). Why was that?

As a related question, did any of it have to do with increased Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe? I ask because my great grandparents had been in the Jewish General Labour Bund in the Pale before immigrating to Canada, and after arriving they and their children and many of their friends became active in the labour movement.