League for Industrial Democracy

The I.S.S. was founded in 1905 by Upton Sinclair, Walter Lippmann, Clarence Darrow, and Jack London with the stated purpose of throwing "light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism."[2]

In the spring of 1921, the ISS held a vote regarding the name and goals of their organization. Harry Laidler announced: "the members of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society had declared themselves in favor of the change in name and purpose."[3] In November,[3][4] the organization assumed its new name and enlarged its scope to addressing society at large. They also presented their new guiding principle: "Education for a New Social Order Based on Production for Public Use and Not for Private Profit."[4][5]

In its early years, the LID addressed societal problems such as poverty, child labor, work conditions, and poor housing conditions, under the leadership of notable activists: Robert Morss Lovett, Charles P. Steinmetz, Florence Kelley, and Stuart Chase.[6] It became the base for leftwing intellectuals, otherwise known as Muckrakers. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the LID organized radio stations and broadcasts centered around the New Deal. Throughout its history, the LID has called itself a proponent of the labor movement. The group saw this movement as a progressive force that is misunderstood by intellectuals. The goal of this is to break down these perceived boundaries and to promote "education for increasing democracy in our economic, political, and cultural life"[7]

Today's affiliates are mostly anti-communists and focus their energy on democracy building in places such as Eastern Europe, Africa, and Central America, while paying very little attention to its domestic program.[8]

On January 1, 1960, the SLID changed its name to the Students for a Democratic Society and began to take a more radical direction. In July 1962 Michael Harrington, then chair, and Tom Kahn clashed with Tom Hayden and Alan Haber over their Port Huron Statement, in particular its

• suggestion that the labor movement was "too quiescent, to be counted with enthusiasm" as an agent for change,
• espousal of participatory democracy and dislike of formal offices, seen as potentially undemocratic and lacking accountability, and
• failure to explicitly exclude communists from its vision of the New Left.

By 1965, SDS had separated from the LID, but it ended national activity in 1969, after it had been taken over by Maoist groups, some of which advocated and committed political terrorism.[9]