Socialist Labor Party?

[crashmcbean]

Does anyone know what the current situation is with the SLP? They have not responded to emails nor sent out any news since I believe September. It is looking like the party is defunct or in indefinite hibernation, and no matter how one feels about the SLP they *were* the first in the USA and if they're gone it would be a real shame. Their paper was always a good read.

[Dr Mindbender]

if they're anything like the British SLP, stay away.

They're a bunch of China/North Korea supporting fucking moonmen.

[Zeus the Moose]

Does anyone know what the current situation is with the SLP? They have not responded to emails nor sent out any news since I believe September. It is
looking like the party is defunct or in indefinite hibernation, and no matter how one feels about the SLP they *were* the first in the USA and if they're gone it would be a real shame. Their paper was always a good read.

I think the Socialist Labor Party is just aging out of existence. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the SLP had more than 100 members, and further surprised if more than say five or six of them were under the age of fifty. To me, it just seems like they weren't able to adapt to the changes that happened on the American left; apparently one of their main post WWII leaders, Eric Hass, left the SLP in part because they wouldn't embrace the social movements of the 1960s.

[mikelepore]

The SLP suspended publication of its newspaper about a year ago, including the printed version, the .pdf file version, and the text email version. There was no announcement about it -- the subscribers just stopped receiving it. According to what I heard some members say, the problem seems to a financial one, and related to a reluctance to discontinue their physical national office building in California, even though it's too expensive to keep operating, and with almost everything now being done in cyberspace the office building isn't really necessary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Recently some "Social-Democrats" ranted about the self-proclaimed Luxemburgist Eric Chester in the SP-USA being some sort of DeLeonist:

http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/letters.shtml

Thoughts? :confused:

[crashmcbean]

>>To me, it just seems like they weren't able to adapt to the changes that happened on the American left<<

True; the SLP, in essence, never really changed much beyond the De Leon era. They kept the same hardline doctrines certainly. But that was the entire character of the party and what distinguished them from others that did evolve and attempt to adapt. In many ways their consistency was the attractive part of the SLP. The Communist party has survived more successfully, yet they've done so at the expense of Marxism. In practical terms the SLP became a dinosaur but at least everyone knew where they stood, and noone expected them to suddenly become Democrats or whatever.

>>The SLP suspended publication of its newspaper about a year ago, including the printed version, the .pdf file version, and the text email version. There was no announcement about it -- the subscribers just stopped receiving it. According to what I heard some members say, the problem seems to a financial one<<

I received a letter announcing the suspension and the office closing. It was followed by a strong push for donations, with the intention of resuming publication of the paper, but for almost six months now nothing has been heard. Their phone number is disconnected (probably as a direct result of the office closure), but their complete non-communication (no responses to emails, no newsletters) is troubling. If the SLP does still exist it would be a good idea to keep their members and supporters informed. Either the SLP has quietly disbanded or the National Secretary has just completely dropped the ball - who will contribute to a party that ignores their own? That in itself can only lead to deeper financial problems and defections which they cannot afford.
Time will tell.

[Martin Blank]

I received a letter announcing the suspension and the office closing. It was followed by a strong push for donations, with the intention of resuming publication of the paper, but for almost six months now nothing has been heard. Their phone number is disconnected (probably as a direct result of the office closure), but their complete non-communication (no responses to emails, no newsletters) is troubling. If the SLP does still exist it would be a good idea to keep their members and supporters informed. Either the SLP has quietly disbanded or the National Secretary has just completely dropped the ball - who will contribute to a party that ignores their own? That in itself can only lead to deeper financial problems and defections which they cannot afford.

Robert Bills tried to turn the SLP into his own personal fan club. He abused the positions of DeLeon for his own power and control. Most honest DeLeonists have moved on -- joined the RUSS or have become involved in discussion groups like the one organized by comrade Lepore, or they are getting involved in organizing and build the revived Workers' International Industrial Union (http://www.wiiu.org/).

If you're looking for an alternative to the SLP, you're welcome to contact the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/). Other former SLP members are.

[Crux]

Recently some "Social-Democrats" ranted about the self-proclaimed Luxemburgist Eric Chester in the SP-USA being some sort of DeLeonist:

http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/letters.shtml

Thoughts? :confused:
I thought that old rightwing organisation (The Social Democrats of America) was dead for good. Sadly it seems I was wrong.

[ZeroNowhere]

De Leon was a blow-hard who did exactly nothing for the workers.
Heh. Presumably you've been reading Irving Stone's account of the meeting between De Leon and Debs in which De Leon clearly showed himself to be an authoritarian jackass. Interestingly, this account was entirely fictional.
Also, where is this 'neo-De Leonist' faction? It sounds kinda cool. Then again, a Party claiming to despise De Leon, even though Debs was pretty much a De Leonist after he turned socialist, is, I suppose, not worth taking seriously.
And really, when socialists (or silly reformists) are arguing against each other and one starts claiming that they represent the 'real workers', unlike the others, I generally tend to tune off. Really, good luck with your 'real workers', guys, I hope you have a blast.

Which reminds me, does nobody have any idea what the hell is going on with the SLP? Hopefully they can revive now, and get rid of the whole 'unconscious democratic centralism' thing that they seem to have been doing for a while, though I'm not sure if they've stopped that currently. Though I suppose that the WPA (and WIIU) do have far more potential now.

[Zeus the Moose]

Also, where is this 'neo-De Leonist' faction? It sounds kinda cool. Then again, a Party claiming to despise De Leon, even though Debs was pretty much a De Leonist after he turned socialist, is, I suppose, not worth taking seriously.

The "Social Democrats USA" is not worth taking serious for so many other reasons in addition to the De Leon thing.

There is no organised tendency (and few if any individuals, to my knowledge) in the Socialist Party that consider themselves De Leonists, though apparently the SP had some relationship with the New Union Party for a period of time in the late 1990s. I can see your point about Debs and De Leon having similar political perspectives though.

[Leo]

It can be said that Debs and De Leon had close politics, De Leon was probably a bit more to the left than Debs. Our current ran a series on De Leonism which might be of interest:

http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/277

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, I don't know, the whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' section was relatively silly, "proletarian revolution cannot use the capitalist state for its own purposes, but must destroy it" is something that orthodox De Leonists wouldn't exactly disagree with, "proletarian revolution requires the violent overthrow of the capitalist state" is something that we would, naturally, disagree with, and is hardly an elementary truth. Though referring to us as 'semi-anarchist' is relatively kind. Then, of course, there's the 'Iron Law of Wages' bullcrap. In fact, lots of it. Though I do respect the ICC, being an internationalist myself. Unfortunately, De Leonism, especially now, seems to be rather US-centric, which may have something to do with the fact that De Leonist organizations, such as PFANS, tend to focus only on the US. Hell, they occasionally manage to sound like patriots. As for the SLP, they appear to like wasting money, and democratic centralist and bureaucratic tendencies led to many De Leonists leaving it.

[Leo]

Eh, I don't know, the whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' section was relatively silly, "proletarian revolution cannot use the capitalist state for its own purposes, but must destroy it" is something that orthodox De Leonists wouldn't exactly disagree with, "proletarian revolution requires the violent overthrow of the capitalist state" is something that we would, naturally, disagree with, and is hardly an elementary truth.Well, regardless of our personal opinion of whether it is true or not, it is an elementary aspect of Marx's work. Anyway it seems to me as if you missed the main point here; it was basically a criticism of De Leonism's perspective of electoral participation and achieving change through it. In any case the thing with political violence basically seems quite natural to me, maybe you can elaborate a little on that?


Then, of course, there's the 'Iron Law of Wages' bullcrap.Why do you think that?


Unfortunately, De Leonism, especially now, seems to be rather US-centric, which may have something to do with the fact that De Leonist organizations, such as PFANS, tend to focus only on the US. Hell, they occasionally manage to sound like patriots. As for the SLP, they appear to like wasting money, and democratic centralist and bureaucratic tendencies led to many De Leonists leaving it.Sounds sad :( Even from the other side of the globe I heard things supporting all these though.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, regardless of our personal opinion of whether it is true or not, it is an elementary aspect of Marx's work.
Are you referring to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? Well, yes, I didn't say that proletarian dictatorship was silly, merely that their criticism was silly. We believe in proletarian dictatorship as much any anybody, seeing as we are revolutionaries, and don't believe that it's realistic for a revolution to succeed internationally at the same time. Of course, the whole "In rejecting the dictatorship of the proletariat, the De Leonists deny the necessity of a period of transition between capitalism and communism, and, like the anarchists, believe that the state will disappear overnight" thing is rather disappointing, as it manages to make strawmen against both De Leonism and anarchism. We don't believe that the state will 'disappear overnight', a silly argument that I've seen used far too many times against anarchism. We don't use the Weberian definition anyways, so I don't see how it would be possible.

"In his 1891 introduction to republication of the Civil War in France Engels noted that Marx’s text on the Paris Commune, was “a most important work of scientific communism, in which the main Marxist tenets in relation to the class struggle, the State, revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat were further elaborated on the basis of the experience of the Paris Commune…In this work Marx corroborated and further developed his idea on the necessity for the proletariat to break up the bourgeois state machine, set forth in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx drew the conclusion that the proletariat should break it up and supersede it by a state of the Paris Commune type. Marx’s conclusion on a new, Paris Commune type of state as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes the essence of his new contribution to revolutionary theory.”" Which does not contradict De Leonism in any way. Well, of course, technically a 'Paris Commune style state' would be Jacobin, but when it comes to the parts that Marx praised there, I don't see anything contrary. Interestingly, we do advocate the proletariat 'smashing' the bourgeois state, though, admittedly, not in as dramatic a manner as you advocate. We're boring like that.
"As we pointed out in Internationalism, #21, "Reformism has always meant the theory and practice of a peaceful transition to socialism, whose hallmarks have been a commitment to parliamentarism, legalism, and pacificism." Except that it's... Not? "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution." A transition to socialism is a revolution, regardless of whether it is peaceful or not. And anyways, since when is, y'know, not liking people getting harmed or killed an essential part of 'bourgeois ideology'? It may be necessary, but why the hell not work to minimize it? It's not like anybody deserves to die just for opposing a revolution, being a fash, a member of the government, or whatever the hell else (not to mention that insurrection would make the economy suffer), so why waste lives by making the first strike? De Leon argued "that "every reform granted by capitalism is a congealed measure of reaction."" In fact, this is perfectly accurate, concessions given by the capitalist state are methods of reaction. Or, as he put it elsewhere, "What are the laws enacted in the interests of labor—however sporadic and futile they may be—if not concessions of capitalism to the growing power of socialism? And what apparition induces the plutocrats of all countries to grant a measure of relief to their expropriated victims, if not the apparition of socialism?" De Leon was arguing against those who went, "Reform if you would preserve", not workers that wanted better wages. And, of course, De Leon did view strikes for better wages as not going far enough, as their wages would only rise temporarily, which is, mind, a belief shared by Marx, and not the Lassallean 'iron law of wages', and, well, what were you expecting him to do, go up to the workers and say, "Well, you get better wages now. Whoo. Regardless of the fact that socialism is the only way for you to be liberated from wage labour, and you have met with much poverty and failures that not even a general strike for better wages could rise against, and been misled and divided by pure and simple unionism and that bloody moron Gompers, I'll just congratulate you for striking for better wages rather than trying to explain class struggle to you when you can see it easiest"? "The attitude of workingmen engaged in a bona fide strike is an inspiring one. It is an earnest that slavery will not prevail. The slave alone who will not rise against his master, who will meekly bend his back to the lash, and turn his cheek to him who plucks his beard - that slave alone is hopeless. But the slave, who, as you of New Bedford, persists, despite failures and poverty, in rebelling, there is always hope for." Nope, not Lassallean. As for criticism, "Between the working class and the capitalist class, there is an irrepressible conflict, a class struggle for life. No glib-tongued politician can vault over it, no capitalist professor or official statistician can argue it away; no capitalist parson can veil it; no labor faker can straddle it; no “reform” architect can bridge it over. It crops up in all manner of ways, like in this strike, in ways that disconcert all the plans and all the schemes of those who would deny or ignore it. It is a struggle that will not down, and must be ended, only by either the total subjugation of the working class, or the abolition of the capitalist class.

Thus you perceive that the theory on which your “pure and simple” trade organizations are grounded, and on which you went into this strike, is false. There being no “common interests,” but only hostile interests, between the capitalist class and the working class, the battle you are waging to establish “safe relations” between the two is a hopeless one."
Not to mention that De Leon in the 1890s wasn't even a De Leonist as is currently understood, so his beliefs at the time would have been largely irrelevant. "As one of his adherents once put it, De Leon believed that "regardless of how strong and militant the working class is, its collective action under capitalism cannot prevent its conditions from becoming worse." Conditions? Nah, generally not. Relative impoverishment? Well, yes. That's not the iron law of wages 'theory', that's from Marx. And anyways, De Leon wasn't saying, "The condition of the working class always gets worse," he was saying that in the past few years from when he gave his speech, it had.
"At the same time, and quite apart form the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the MATERIAL CONDITIONS and the SOCIAL FORMS necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the CONSERVATIVE motto, 'A FAIR DAY'S WAGE FOR A FAIR DAY'S WORK!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the REVOLUTIONARY watchword, 'ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM!'"
In fact, I am glad that this was quoted from Marx: "Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches beyond salvation…" Wait, what being the tendency of things? Oh dear, "These few hints will suffice to show that the very development of modern industry must progressively turn the scale in favour of the capitalist against the working man, and that consequently the general tendency of capitalistic production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages, or to push the value of labour more or less to its minimum limit. Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation. I think I have shown that their struggles for the standard of wages are incidents inseparable from the whole wages system, that in 99 cases out of 100 their efforts at raising wages are only efforts at maintaining the given value of labour, and that the necessity of debating their price with the capitalist is inherent to their condition of having to sell themselves as commodities. By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement." In fact, the last sentence was also quoted. The rest of that? Nah. In fact, that was pretty much De Leon's line on the subject (as expressed in a previous quote from De Leon). The whole 'Iron Law of Wages' bullcrap was made up by Connoly when he was pissed off that De Leon was dissing the Church. In fact, what is the 'iron law of wages'? Here's Kautsky's summary of the 'law': "... a rise in wages results in a rapid increase of the working population, and the augmented supply of labour depresses wages, while a fall in wages brings about greater poverty and higher mortality among the working class, which diminishes the supply of labour-power, and thus causes wages to rise again."

"Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades' Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time."


Anyway it seems to me as if you missed the main point here; it was basically a criticism of De Leonism's perspective of electoral participation and achieving change through it.
All that I saw was, "The state is bourgeois. Therefore De Leon is wrong. I'm not entirely sure why. Anyways", and the ridiculous idea that De Leon believed "that socialism could be gained peaceably at the ballot box through piecemeal reforms" like the right of the Second International, which is false. And anyways, 'What means this strike?' was made before De Leon became a De Leonist, where he seemed to believe in a Party taking and holding the state, and seemed to see political organization as the sword, and industrial unionism as the shield, a belief completely reversed in De Leonism. "Lenin systematically reclaimed the theoretical thread, restating Marx and Engels’ insights on the state in State and Revolution." My only view on that book is that burning so many strawmen must be bad for the environment. As for Part VI, I stopped reading at, "While it is true that much of revolutionary Marxism's legacy on the question of democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat had been obscured by the opportunism of the Second International, the De Leonists showed themselves totally unaware of Lenin's State and Revolution, a landmark text which painstakingly reconstructed the views of Marxism on these questions." I am allergic to Lenin-worship, and do not wish to aggravate my current health. And the whole 'De Leonism is so dogmatic!' (the DLSC and PFANs may happen to disagree) thing is so old and overused that's it should be put up in some museum somewhere.

[mikelepore]

Heh. Presumably you've been reading Irving Stone's account of the meeting between De Leon and Debs in which De Leon clearly showed himself to be an authoritarian jackass. Interestingly, this account was entirely fictional.

For the benefit of those who aren't familiar with it, that book is a 1947 biography of Debs entitled "Adversary in the House." This scene is the only place where De Leon is mentioned. Debs goes to De Leon's office and is all smiles and politeness, but De Leon pounds his fist on the table and screams, "When I am the dictator of America.... !!" Fictitious of course, because even De Leon's enemies who accused him of being dictatorial about intra-party affairs don't claim that he wanted to become the country's dictator. Then, according to Stone, Debs is so shaken that he runs, not walks, out the door and down the street, into the nearest tavern, and gulps down a glass of whisky, says Stone, "as fast as he could down it." Unfortunately, books like this have been referenced by the dabblers who write encyclopedias, and so the dictatorial stereotype of De Leon has been added to the collection of many other tales in American history that never happened, alongside the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock, George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, etc.

[mikelepore]

Hmm, funny .... while De Leon may have been "dictatorial" or "dogmatic" about how he handled some theoretical arguments, the one particular subject where he was traditionally accused of it happens to be an issue where he was absolutely right. He warned the Socialist Party that they should stop telling the working class that socialism is defined simply as passing the child labor laws, having a state school system, and city-owned trains, water supplies and sewers. Now a hundred years later, the working class is totally confused about what socialism means, and it was the Socialist Party that was the major source of the confusion.

[crashmcbean]

Hmm, funny .... while De Leon may have been "dictatorial" or "dogmatic" about how he handled some theoretical arguments, the one particular subject where he was traditionally accused of it happens to be an issue where he was absolutely right. He warned the Socialist Party that they should stop telling the working class that socialism is defined simply as passing the child labor laws, having a state school system, and city-owned trains, water supplies and sewers. Now a hundred years later, the working class is totally confused about what socialism means, and it was the Socialist Party that was the major source of the confusion.

And when the bulk of their demands came about, the SP quickly declined as well. De Leon was right. But the reformist questions persist.

[mikelepore]

If you're looking for an alternative to the SLP, you're welcome to contact the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/).

I don't see much explanation there, at http://www.workers-party.com/ .. The link that says "Program" goes to the following. This is a program ?!?!? A "program" is supposed to be about what methods people are urged to follow.

**************************************************

Our Program... (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=36&Itemid=55)
We want freedom and liberation. Capitalism is a system of exploitation and oppression. For working people, capitalism is nothing more than slavery, where the shackles that bind us are the threats of starvation and misery if we do not labor for the profit of others. We organize to overthrow capitalism and free ourselves from this modern-day slavery — to liberate ourselves from exploitation and oppression, and take into our hands the power to determine the destiny of ourselves, our class and our society — by building a classless, communist society.

[Martin Blank]

I don't see much explanation there, at http://www.workers-party.com/ .. The link that says "Program" goes to the following. This is a program ?!?!? A "program" is supposed to be about what methods people are urged to follow.

Damn, Mike. I thought you were a little more Internet-savvy than that. I mean, you can obviously copy-and-paste from the teaser box, but you can't click on the link in the headline?

[mikelepore]

Damn, Mike. I thought you were a little more Internet-savvy than that. I mean, you can obviously copy-and-paste from the teaser box, but you can't click on the link in the headline?

I didn't notice that link at first, because it was covered up by the box which makes the major item on the page the message that the site was intentionally designed so that it won't work properly unless the visitor first downloads a different browser. Now that's real Internet savvy!

see screen image (http://www.deleonism.org/temp001.jpg)

[Martin Blank]

I didn't notice that link at first, because it was covered up by the box which makes the major item on the page the message that the site was intentionally designed so that it won't work properly unless the visitor first downloads a different browser. Now that's real Internet savvy!

see screen image (http://www.deleonism.org/temp001.jpg)

Didn't you know we get kickbacks from Microsoft for every person we force to download a newer version of Internet Explorer? Maybe Robert Bills should look into that. :D

Seriously, though, I was not aware of the problems with that old of a version of MSIE. I'll have to talk to the web team about that.

[Kibbutznik]

Just get Firefox, the sight works just fine with it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speaking of the WPA's program, here's a group discussion on it (just ask Comrade CommunistLeague to join):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1367

[mikelepore]

If you're looking for an alternative to the SLP, you're welcome to contact the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/). Other former SLP members are.

I find it hard to believe that former SLP members would be attracted by what your web site says. I have now found the correct link to the "Our Program" section, but I still don't see something there that people accustomed to the SLP style of thinking would call a program. The "10 points" document is a humanistic document that sounds to me like Erich Fromm. The document "Our Platform: What We Fight For" is a long list of reformist suggestions of the type that people who are influenced by the SLP are repulsed by. If you get some former SLP members to join, I'm sure they always disagreed with the SLP program even while they were in the SLP, and the "bureaucracy" that they cite as the reason for resigning was just an excuse.

[mikelepore]

Speaking of the WPA's program, here's a group discussion on it (just ask Comrade CommunistLeague to join):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1367

Link broken, goes to "invalid" page.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oy vey! Try this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=87

If the link is still broken, you should speak with CL.

[Kassad]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.PSLWeb.org)) is a Marxist-Leninist party that I feel confident in saying is the most active communist party in the United States. The Party uses bourgeoisie elections as educational opportunities, but realizes that capitalist reforms only go so far, as revolutionary change and socialism need to be implemented by a workers movement in a revolutionary fashion.

I find our website to be much easier to navigate than most others, which makes it incredibly convenient to manage information and make things easy to obtain. If you're interested in looking at different parties in the United States, I definitely recommend checking us out.

[Martin Blank]

I find it hard to believe that former SLP members would be attracted by what your web site says.

You might. But I've talked to them.


The "10 points" document is a humanistic document that sounds to me like Erich Fromm.

This is amusing. I guess you'll have to be more specific.


The document "Our Platform: What We Fight For" is a long list of reformist suggestions of the type that people who are influenced by the SLP are repulsed by.

"Reformist suggestions" like workers' control of production? Like abolishing the Senate and Presidency? (Oh, wait! You support keeping them.) Like abolition of the armed enforcers of capitalism's "law and order"? (Oh, wait! You support keeping them too.) Like the formation of a Congress of the Economy to coordinate production on an economy-wide scale, and placement of political and economic power into the hands of councils and assemblies elected from workplaces (kinda like "socialist industrial unionism")?


If you get some former SLP members to join, I'm sure they always disagreed with the SLP program even while they were in the SLP, and the "bureaucracy" that they cite as the reason for resigning was just an excuse.

I'll let them know your low opinion of them.

[mikelepore]

I don't call something a reformist program only if it contains entirely reform ideas. I call it a reformist program if it contains some reform ideas. Yes, it does say workers' control, but it also recommends a new dollar value for an improvement to the minimum wage law, the proposed repeal of certain laws, etc.

Since no one in the SLP will come to revleft, I'll have to paraphrase their position. They believe, and I think they're mostly right, that ideas for adopting a new system and ideas for fixing the old system push each other out of consciousness. The more people you reach with your proposed number for the new minimum wage law, that's a certain amount of "bilboard space" or "bumper sticker space" that could have been spent to focus on the new system but instead focused on fixing the old system.

Where I differ from the SLP is, they will deny membership to someone who utters one reformist sentence no matter where or when it may have been uttered. I think, however, that a socialist group should tell its members to divide their own time, keep the socialist program entirely focused on the elements of the new system, and anyone who supports certain reform ideas should work for them on different occasions. In other words, it's not reform objectives that I oppose, but the inclusion of reform objectives in any document that the reader might interpret as the method of enacting socialism. There are some reform ideas that I support myself, but I would certainly never mention them on my socialist web site.

[mikelepore]

By me being critical of someone else's published goal and program, this imposes on me the responsibility to say how I would do it differently. The following scribble by myself will be to show the gist of what I would call a statement of a socialist goal and program, as I think it should be expressed on a printed leaflet or a web site. This will not be complete or even proofread once, just something that I am scratching out before my morning cup of coffee.

The relevancy of these comments to this SLP thread is that I have been reading SLP literature since approximately 1968 and they have been a major influence on my thinking. I'm not an SLP member and I don't claim to represent them. I was a member of the SLP for about seven years during the 1970s.

GOAL

All factories, farms, mines, mills, railroads, schools, hospitals, and all other industries and services, shall be owned collectively by all members of society.

The administration of industries and services shall be performed by a combination of the entire bodies of workers, and the elected representatives of the workers, in each industrial sector, and the general public, locally, regionally and centrally, according to a structure that shall be described in detail in a newly written constitution.

In each constiuency, based on either industrial sector or location, there shall be the direct short-term election by majority vote of all administrators, managers, and supervisors, the means for their constituencies to recall those electees at will, and the nonexistence of any appointed positions in any administrative capacities.

All businesses, companies, investments, and other relationships that imply that not all industries or services are socially owned, shall cease at once to exist in any publicly recognized form.

Society shall adopt a new system of currency that will compensate individuals for their work in approximate proportion to the number of hours worked by each individual.


PROGRAM

In every sector of industry, and in every location, the workers shall call meetings at which they shall establish a new organization that will become the management system for their respective work facilities and industrial sectors.

All such workplace organizations of workers shall be integrated as departments of a single organization of all workers in all sectors and in all locations.

This workplace organization shall establish the entire necessary department structure, intra-industry and inter-industry, local, regional and central, as needed for this organization to be completely functional as the administration of all industries and services.

A socialist political movement shall take effective control of all elected offices of government, and then it shall declare and bring about, by such means as legislation, constitutional amendments, executive orders, and control of the military and law enforcement branches, that the workplace organization of the workers is newly recognized as the valid management of all industries and services for all purposes, and that all previously existing businesses, corporations, proprietorships, economic properties, equities, etc. shall at once cease to have any legal validity.

[Martin Blank]

I am admittedly not a fan of thread necromancy, but in this case I'll make an exception.


I don't call something a reformist program only if it contains entirely reform ideas. I call it a reformist program if it contains some reform ideas. Yes, it does say workers' control, but it also recommends a new dollar value for an improvement to the minimum wage law, the proposed repeal of certain laws, etc.

Let me make three points about this:

1. The WPA's Platform of immediate demands is not something set in stone. That is, the demands themselves live only so long as they are objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism. Once they have been superseded by events, they are no longer necessary and would be discarded. The constant demands, those for workers' control of production and distribution, a workers' republic, etc., are "set in stone" until capitalism is overthrown. But they, like the immediate demands, will also be discarded once they have been met.

2. To call something "reformist" implies that the exploiting and oppressing classes would be willing to take one or some of these demands and implement them. I would argue that such a thing would not happen; the capitalists and their petty-bourgeois appendages are unwilling (if not unable) to implement any single numbered demand in the party's Platform. They might try to implement a part of one numbered demand, but even that would fail. Moreover, no single demand in the Platform is designed to be extracted from the others.

3. In preparing my response on your point, I found an interesting passage by DeLeon that might, in my view, clarify some matters:


The moment things that are not in the nature of a demand, because they are not the goal, are raised to the dignity of a “demand,” they are apt to be, and generally are, confused with the goal itself. A political party that sets up “immediate” demands by so much blurs its constant demand or goal. The presence of these “immediate” demands in a socialist platform reveals pure-and-simple politicianism — corruption, or the invitation to corruption.

Only the economic organization may and must reach out after crumbs — “improved conditions” — on its way to emancipation. The very nature of the organization preserves it from the danger of “resting satisfied.” of accepting “improvement” for “goal.” The economic organization is forced by economic laws to realize it can preserve no “improvement” unless it marches onward to emancipation.

Otherwise with the political organization. It must be “whole hog or none.” The very nature of its existence — itself only a path clearer for the economic organization, and only a temporary means — renders the political organization prone to “rest satisfied” with incidentals and “improvements.” (“Demands — ‘Immediate’ and ‘Constant’,” June 21, 1911)


I found these comments by DeLeon interesting and enlightening. It gives insight into the place he saw for "immediate" demands. And, given the context, it makes sense to me that he presents the issue as he does. But first, a little history, to bring others up to speed.


In 1895, the Socialist Labor Party launched the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance as its economic arm. It was this body, which later (in 1905) was a founding organization of the IWW, that DeLeon saw as the organization that should raise immediate demands, freeing the SLP to concentrate on the constant demand for the abolition of capitalism. When DeLeon formulated the strategy around Socialist Industrial Unionism, it was never meant to be just for the SLP, but also for the ST&LA (and later, the IWW and, after that, the original WIIU).


DeLeon's approach to immediate demands was, from the beginning, placed in the context of there existing political and economic organizations fighting side-by-side. It is apparent to me that, as far as DeLeon was concerned, at no time was there to be only one part of the equation in existence. That is a product of the post-DeLeon SLP.

I bring this up for two reasons: First, I bring it up because until recently such an economic organization did not exist. With the reorganization and relaunching of the WIIU, however, I can see such an arrangement in regards to immediate and constant demands being made -- that is, the WIIU raising its own Platform of immediate demands (not only addressing economic questions, but also political ones), and the WPA raising the constant demands.

Second, I bring it up because I think that the classical position of DeLeon has been taken out of context by the post-DeLeon SLPers, including you. Does this mean that DeLeon would have necessarily taken a different approach to the issue of immediate and constant demands in a situation where only a political organization existed? None of us can answer that question with certainty. And, no, I don't think it's quite right to argue that DeLeon wasn't a "DeLeonist" until after 1900; that smacks of some of the "Marxist-Leninist" groups that argue Lenin wasn't a "Leninist" until after 1912. (I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the SLP did not strike immediate demands from its Platform until 1900.) It might be worthwhile to review DeLeon's view of "reforms" from this editorial (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1896/1896_jan05a.pdf), which came out in 1896 -- just after the ST&LA was formed, but before it had developed into the kind of organization that could propagate anything.


Since no one in the SLP will come to revleft, I'll have to paraphrase their position. They believe, and I think they're mostly right, that ideas for adopting a new system and ideas for fixing the old system push each other out of consciousness. The more people you reach with your proposed number for the new minimum wage law, that's a certain amount of "bilboard space" or "bumper sticker space" that could have been spent to focus on the new system but instead focused on fixing the old system.

I would refer you to the above comments to see how the post-DeLeon SLP differs from its political namesake, in my opinion.


Where I differ from the SLP is, they will deny membership to someone who utters one reformist sentence no matter where or when it may have been uttered. I think, however, that a socialist group should tell its members to divide their own time, keep the socialist program entirely focused on the elements of the new system, and anyone who supports certain reform ideas should work for them on different occasions. In other words, it's not reform objectives that I oppose, but the inclusion of reform objectives in any document that the reader might interpret as the method of enacting socialism. There are some reform ideas that I support myself, but I would certainly never mention them on my socialist web site.

Again, see above.

I'll see about commenting on the Program you posted here at some point in the near future.

[mikelepore]

1. The WPA's Platform of immediate demands is not something set in stone. That is, the demands themselves live only so long as they are objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism. Once they have been superseded by events, they are no longer necessary and would be discarded. The constant demands, those for workers' control of production and distribution, a workers' republic, etc., are "set in stone" until capitalism is overthrown. But they, like the immediate demands, will also be discarded once they have been met.

How could one know which immediate demands are "objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism"? I would say this of demands about freedom of speech, the right to distribute literature, the right to organize, etc. These help all subsequent recruitment and the implementation of additional social changes.

But I would be interested in why you include the following, for example.



5. Abolition of all existing “English Only” laws. Prohibition of the establishment of an official language. The right of any person to be educated or receive state services in their own language. Language classes for immigrants offered free of charge and administered by the state.
6. Free, comprehensive domestic care programs, including child care, meal preparation and delivery, and cleaning and maintenance services, to free women from domestic slavery and servitude. Free, comprehensive elderly care programs, including social and cultural activities, meal preparation and delivery, and cleaning and maintenance services. Abolition of laws that mandate institutionalization for the elderly or mentally disabled in favor of in-home nursing care and community-oriented programs.
7. Decriminalization of prostitution. The right of prostitutes and other sex-industry workers to unionize. Mandatory health care and medical checkups for all sex workers, under the control of sex workers’ councils or assemblies, and paid for by the capitalists.
8. Abolition of all laws that restrict the rights of homosexuals and transgendered people. Abolition of laws that favor heterosexual nuclear families, including special taxation privileges and preferences in state services. Extension of the common rights associated with marriage to any pairing that requests them. Inclusion of sexual orientation and sexual identity in all anti-discrimination laws."


Are these items "objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism"?

I'm not denying that these demands are good ideas. But is the fact that they are good ideas a sufficient reason to include them? There must be hundreds of other ideas that would also be good ideas but which aren't included. What is the filtering criterion for deciding what to include?

[Martin Blank]

How could one know which immediate demands are "objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism"? I would say this of demands about freedom of speech, the right to distribute literature, the right to organize, etc. These help all subsequent recruitment and the implementation of additional social changes.

When we started formulating the demands for the Platform, the main question we asked ourselves is: What objective impediments to building a working-class movement to defeat capitalist rule exist, and what would it take to remove those impediments.


But I would be interested in why you include the following, for example.


5. Abolition of all existing “English Only” laws. Prohibition of the establishment of an official language. The right of any person to be educated or receive state services in their own language. Language classes for immigrants offered free of charge and administered by the state.

Immigration and the presence of foreign-born workers has been used as a means of successfully dividing the working class. Part of that attempt to divide workers in the U.S. has been to demand "English Only" laws, to deny state services to workers who don't speak English, and to make it economically impossible for workers who want to learn English to take classes.


6. Free, comprehensive domestic care programs, including child care, meal preparation and delivery, and cleaning and maintenance services, to free women from domestic slavery and servitude. Free, comprehensive elderly care programs, including social and cultural activities, meal preparation and delivery, and cleaning and maintenance services. Abolition of laws that mandate institutionalization for the elderly or mentally disabled in favor of in-home nursing care and community-oriented programs.

Under capitalism, women are still relegated to an economically and socially subordinate position in the nuclear family, expected to be a domestic slave and accept the restriction of their ability to fully participate in society. The elderly, especially elderly workers, are treated like "surplus population" and are often isolated from society at large, not only denying them the right to participate in society, but also robbing succeeding generations of workers of the lessons of their experience.


7. Decriminalization of prostitution. The right of prostitutes and other sex-industry workers to unionize. Mandatory health care and medical checkups for all sex workers, under the control of sex workers’ councils or assemblies, and paid for by the capitalists.

Bourgeois morality has been used to force those whose labor-power is expressed in and through their sexuality into a position of virtual chattel slavery. Sex workers are not treated as workers, and are not extended the same rights as workers. Even in states where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada, prostitutes are not legally allowed to organize, and their health and welfare are considered their own affair. This imposed atomization is even the case in instances where prostitutes work in the same house.


8. Abolition of all laws that restrict the rights of homosexuals and transgendered people. Abolition of laws that favor heterosexual nuclear families, including special taxation privileges and preferences in state services. Extension of the common rights associated with marriage to any pairing that requests them. Inclusion of sexual orientation and sexual identity in all anti-discrimination laws.

Sexuality and equality of sexuality has been a relatively recent but pernicious attempt by the capitalists to divide society and create an "enemy within" that keeps workers tied to the existing class order -- this in spite of the fact that a majority of people favor equal rights and non-discrimination based on sexuality.


Are these items "objectively necessary for the working class and its struggle to overthrow capitalism"?

I'm not denying that these demands are good ideas. But is the fact that they are good ideas a sufficient reason to include them? There must be hundreds of other ideas that would also be good ideas but which aren't included. What is the filtering criterion for deciding what to include?

See above for the main criterion we use. And if you have good ideas for things to add, please suggest them here or in the appropriate thread in the CL/WPA group.

[Die Neue Zeit]

With the reorganization and relaunching of the WIIU, however, I can see such an arrangement in regards to immediate and constant demands being made -- that is, the WIIU raising its own Platform of immediate demands (not only addressing economic questions, but also political ones), and the WPA raising the constant demands.

For a moment, I thought the WPA would leave the DOTP-as-minimum advocacy to the WIIU.

[crashmcbean]

Does anyone know what the current situation is with the SLP? They have not responded to emails nor sent out any news since I believe September. It is looking like the party is defunct or in indefinite hibernation

I'll answer my own question. The Socialist Labor Party does, in fact, still exist.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'll answer my own question. The Socialist Labor Party does, in fact, still exist. This is confirmed by a letter sent out to their membership.
There are a lot of problems for the party, chief among them is the lack of funds. I realize, however, that their bank account and dissipating membership has less to do with their vision of socialism and their sectarianism than to the indifference and condescending attitude the leadership has toward their own.
So they're still having bureaucracy problems?
Have they decided to dump the unnecessary expenses?

[crashmcbean]

Have they decided to dump the unnecessary expenses?

The paper is supposed to eventually return; the office appears gone forever. So those expenses were dealt with last year.