The SP-USA

[Imposter Marxist]

What do you guys think of the SP-USA? My friend, a non-marxist Socialist is joining, and I want to know more about it. (I myself am a Communist)

[The Vegan Marxist]

What do you guys think of the SP-USA? My friend, a non-marxist Socialist is joining, and I want to know more about it. (I myself am a Communist)

They seem like a nice group that have the interests of the people at heart, at least when compared to the CPUSA. But, to me, it seems like they're trying to play government rather than the voice of the workers.

[Tablo]

They do seem to have some democratic socialist influences in the official party line, but are filled with members of the revolutionary left. Based on the members of that party I have talked to they seem pretty decent.

[chegitz guevara]

The SPUSA is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the vast majority of the membership could be classified as social democrats, but the vast majority of them take no active role in the Party. Most of us who are active are commies, revolutionary socialists, and anarchists, of various sorts. Unfortunately, the revolutionaries are disorganized, and some what demoralized, and this has allowed the social democrats to take the initiative.

The SPUSA needs more revolutionaries. If you're a commie, join the Party and help us win it back.

The upside of the organization is that it is non-dogmatic, so you aren't required to adhere to an specific doctrine, and won't be thrown out of the Party for having your own view points. The worst aspect of the organization is that a lot of comrades don't act very professionally, but they are mostly young, and will learn.

[chegitz guevara]

But, to me, it seems like they're trying to play government rather than the voice of the workers.

That's definitely a problem with Brian Moore, our former Presidential candidate. He keeps trying to offer solutions to the government. I tell him, "Brian, we're trying to overthrow the government, not fix it."

There is, of course, a place for offering solutions, i.e., solutions that people would want, but the government/capitalists won't deliver. I believe the Trots call that a transitional demand (I didn't pay attention to that part of my Trot education), i.e., a demand designed to split the masses from the system.

Most of us, despite the running in elections (including moi (http://www.luzietti.com/)) have no illusions in the system.

[Tablo]

Good to hear from an actual member. I've been wondering a bit about that party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is, of course, a place for offering solutions, i.e., solutions that people would want, but the government/capitalists won't deliver. I believe the Trots call that a transitional demand (I didn't pay attention to that part of my Trot education), i.e., a demand designed to split the masses from the system.


Good thing you didn't, because I made plenty of posts highlighting the problems of "transitional" economism. Let's just say that, since you too read Lars Lih's work on Lenin, Trotsky's method was little different from the broad-economist Boris Krichevskii (the Rabocheye Delo guy).

On an unrelated note, will the SP-USA affiliate with the proposed FSI by Chavez?

[chegitz guevara]

I doubt we will affiliate, but we are sending someone to the conference.

It's illegal for any American organization to affiliate with an international revolutionary organization. There are ways around that, but formal affiliation is out.

Also, while we are intrigued and hopeful about the call for a 5th international, we suspect it's more oriented towards ruling parties or parties which contend for a place within the capitalist state, and not revolutionary organizations hoping to overthrow capitalism.

That said, there is an opportunity for us to connect with revolutionaries from other organizations, especially in Latin America. That's what we hope to do there, and who knows, it's always possible the 5I will actually be usful. :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I doubt we will affiliate, but we are sending someone to the conference.

It's illegal for any American organization to affiliate with an international revolutionary organization. There are ways around that, but formal affiliation is out.

I thought you said mere individual membership was illegal? The pareconists are pushing hard for affiliation (let's see the government crack down if this is indeed illegal :glare: ).

There's also the historical precedent set by the original CPUSA and its affiliation to a more radical Comintern than this Fifth Socialist International (as you noted above). Then of course there are the Trot groups active in the US and their "internationals."

[cb9's_unity]

Right now I most closely relate myself to the SP-USA. While I don't support the social democratic side of the party I do support their multi-tendency style of organization. If they can find a way to actually shed that social democratic side and become a wholly revolutionary party, they have a significantly greater chance at success.

I went to one meeting of the Boston local and unfortunately there was barely a hint of true radicalism throughout the whole meeting (even though there was only about 7 people there, 3 of which were new). After that I meant to give the party a few more chances but things got a little chaotic in my personal life.

This is at least my personal history with the party.

[mikelepore]

The upside of the organization is that it is non-dogmatic, so you aren't required to adhere to an specific doctrine, and won't be thrown out of the Party for having your own view points.

If an organization doesn't have a consistent position on anything, what can it accomplish?

The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, "When you don't know what harbor you are sailing for, no wind is the right wind."

[The Douche]

If an organization doesn't have a consistent position on anything, what can it accomplish?

The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, "When you don't know what harbor you are sailing for, no wind is the right wind."

They have a platform. I think chegitz meant "doctrine" as in a specific school of thought (i.e. Trotskyism, DeLeonism, etc)

[chegitz guevara]

We have principles, a platform, and a goal. What we don't have is a rigid line to which everyone must pay fealty. For example, there's much difference of opinion in the SP about what the former USSR was.

In some organizations, having a difference of opinion on that would get you expelled. Furthermore, we are allowed to express our differences of opinion in public, so while certain organizations allow differences of opinion internally, in some mistaken notion of Leninism that Lenin and the Bolsheviks never practiced, external expression of those differences is not allowed.

I'm not going to pretend things are all hunky dory in the Party. There is a major cultural divide between social democrats and revolutionaries. Social democrats are liberals and are all about individualism (don't raise dues, collect more donations!--you can't expel someone, even if he's raping the Party, etc.), and they oppose majority rule, except when they are in charge. Then they become dictatorial, but shout "Tyranny" when we ask them to obey the constitution.

I need a hundred or more revolutionaries to join in the next year, so we can smash the social democrats at the next convention, and build a truly multi-tendency revolutionary party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That last paragraph was my kind of sales pitch. ;)

[Red Commissar]

It would be good if the closest liberals are flushed out. Now if only we could do the same with Gus Hall and his ilk at the CP-USA...

[mikelepore]

The SP-USA is fully dedicated to the premise that a large social change is an accumulation of a large number of small changes; to create an entirely new society, one should promote many small ideas to serve as increments. Therefore, it's platform consists of recycling garbage, banning pesticides, changes to the tax laws, changes to the occupational safety laws, etc.

That approach is dead wrong. A fundamental and structural social change is NOT an accumulation of hundreds or thousands of adjustments to the old system that is to be abolished.

Establishing socialism can only be achieved by a clearly focused program to repeal the property rights of the capitalist class and have a large network of workers take over the administration.

No number, however immense, of band-aid patches placed on capitalism can comprise socialism, comprise a road in the direction of socialism, prepare people psychologically for socialism, or in any way lead either directly or indirectly to socialism.

What the working class needs most is to discuss and then to plan the building of a new worker-managed system of production for social use, prepare whatever industrial and political activities are needed for that single purpose, and to remain focused and not distracted.

For the novice who may be wondering what De Leonism is, what I wrote above is its meaning in a nutshell. My comment above is the "dogmatic sectarianism" that gets condemned by our fellow workers who are stuck in the reformist trap.

[Lyev]

the problems of "transitional" economism.
Sorry to veer the topic elsewhere but what's wrong with the transitional program? Surely all it is, is the amelioration of the conditions of the working class under capitalism, and whilst doing so, positing a socialist alternative. i see no problems with that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The logic of the TP starts out from the non-political level to higher political levels:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html

[Zeus the Moose]

That last paragraph was my kind of sales pitch. ;)

Clearly you need to move to the US, then ;)


I went to one meeting of the Boston local and unfortunately there was barely a hint of true radicalism throughout the whole meeting (even though there was only about 7 people there, 3 of which were new). After that I meant to give the party a few more chances but things got a little chaotic in my personal life.

Once you feel like you're up to it, I'd suggest attending some meetings in Boston again. I only know a couple of the Boston comrades, but I'd describe those I do know as been associated with the revolutionary left in the SP. I can kind of see where your coming from though; business meetings may not give the most radical impression that, say, a campaign speech or educational meeting might.

[Schmuha]

Sorry to veer the topic elsewhere but what's wrong with the transitional program? Surely all it is, is the amelioration of the conditions of the working class under capitalism, and whilst doing so, positing a socialist alternative. i see no problems with that.

I have to say that I agree with you that transition can be a good strategy. I look at it like introducing a new IT system into any organization. There are many different ways to introduce a new system, whether it be a drastic and quick change or phase change-over; it all has to do with present factors within an organization. For example, given the reluctance by the general population to socialism (I mean, can you blame them with the years and generations of propoganda, which they have been continuously exposed to?) an integrated approach is required, or else you run the risk of confirming the Cold-War fears many adults in this country still have in the back of their mind of a sudden communist invasion, which automatically sends them in the most stubborn of defense modes.

What we have to realize is that both the revolutionary dynamic and social-democratic approach can exist and complement each other. When it comes to the broad image of a party, such as the SPUSA, a social-democratic approach is best, much like how smokers do better with working a nicotine patch instead of going cold turkey. While on the other side of this same coin (to reach the same goal), the revolutionary side works within the smaller (but ultimately just as important) context of spreading ideas and information through numerous means, and supporting worker's rights, through positive actions such as sit-ins, marches, rallies, etc.

I know all of this sounds like generalities, but sometimes that is what is needed, and it seems like something many in SPUSA already have in mind.

That is why every time I can, I vote SPUSA, but unfortunately, it is difficult for me to be an active member, given my geographical separation of being in the middle of nowhere in Texas and also because of the my current occupation....

[Physicist]

If an organization doesn't have a consistent position on anything, what can it accomplish?

The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, "When you don't know what harbor you are sailing for, no wind is the right wind."

I think the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party's nearly fifty years of rule dispels that myth. Fractionalization based on ideological differences hasn't done well for socialists...anywhere. Even the overly bureaucratic CP-USA, with a long history of rigid enforcement on issues both "good and bad," has been pursuaded towards a platform of social democracy. It's unforunate, but the left's message simply isn't selling right now.

[chegitz guevara]

The SP-USA is fully dedicated to the premise that a large social change is an accumulation of a large number of small changes; to create an entirely new society, one should promote many small ideas to serve as increments. Therefore, it's platform consists of recycling garbage, banning pesticides, changes to the tax laws, changes to the occupational safety laws, etc.

You're in New York, so you can certainly be forgiven for having that impression of the Party. NYC is the epicenter of the social democratic wing of our Party. Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and Chicago are also quite social democratic as well. Florida, Michigan, Connecticut, Vermont, Boston, Northern Jersey, Texas, Memphis, Kansas are all revolutionary branches. The Philly branch is too new for me to know anyone there to judge, and Southern Jersey is torn between revs and socdems.

The Party has shifted much farther to the left in the last decade and a half. There are still a lot of the old guard, who want to hang on to the Frank Zeidler/Norman Thomas aspect of our Party, but then there's comrades like my local, which is named the Bolshevik Beach Bums. The SP tradition we associate with is: Debs, Conolly, Bukharin, Trotsky, Kollontai, Keller, Mother Jones, Big Bill Haywood, Louis Farina, John Reed, etc., all former members of the Party.

The majority of active comrades in the Party understand that socialism will only come about as the result of a revolution, an overthrow of the government, and not as the result of incremental changes of winning elections. We are definitely not "fully dedicated to the premise that a large social change is an accumulation of a large number of small changes."

There is a struggle in the Party. The revolutionary left is not organized. In fact, you could rather say, we are disorganized. That doesn't stop the social democrats from claiming to be the defenders of individual freedom against us monolithic tyrants. Yet they march in lock-step. It was amazing to the entire convention watching the entire New York delegation vote in unison on nearly every single position. They lost nearly every position vote, but were able to win the male co-chair and get two NC members and two alternates (though at least one, maybe more, of those comrades is considerably further to the left than the co-chair).

If comrades want to help win the Socialist Party fully back for the revolutionary socialist movement, join the Party and help us crush the social democrats completely and thoroughly. There are other social democratic organizations, but there is no other multi-tendency, revolutionary organization in the country. The only restriction is you cannot be a member of a democratic centralist organization (or, obviously, some heinous right winger). If one hundred revolutionaries join the Party by next April, we'll rout those liberals.

[mikelepore]

chegitz, my comments referred to the national platform on socialistparty-usa.org. You say that not all members are liberals and social democrats. So then where is there a manifesto published by some SP members denouncing and opposing the SP national platform?

[The Douche]

chegitz, my comments referred to the national platform on socialistparty-usa.org. You say that not all members are liberals and social democrats. So then where is there a manifesto published by some SP members denouncing and opposing the SP national platform?

Point six, under the labor plank of the platform reads:


6. We support militant, united labor action including hot cargo agreements, and boycotts, factory committees, secondary and sympathy strikes, sit-down strikes, general strikes, and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces.
(emphasis mine)

The sp-usa does call for the working class to sieze the means of production.

If you are a state-socialist I think you should join the SP, no matter what your particular varient of state socialism is.

[Revy]

I don't think people realize that a party does not have to be without some ideological conflict. Just look at the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the RSDLP.

I understand the fear of social democrats. The idea that the SP-USA would become larger and shift more to the right just like the German SDP did. And that in 2030 the Socialist Party could be ruling over a social democracy dressed up in socialist rhetoric. My opinion is that even if that happens, and revolutionaries couldn't turn the tide in their direction, they would have to split and fight against the party. But right now it's not like you can concede the party to reformists.

You can reach more people by being in the SP as a revolutionary and bringing it over to revolution, than you can by being in the Socialist Workers' International League of Fourth Internationalists.

[theblackmask]

I was a member in the Chicago area in 2003, and let my membership lapse after a year. For most, it seems membership entails nothing but mailing in a ballot sheet every year and paying dues. I was more active in their autonomous youth branch, YPSL, and managed to reestablish their web presence, as their website was broken and unfinished at the time.

Looking at their site now, it looks like YPSL is in a "state of reorganization" for a few months. It does seem like a good time for real revolutionaries to jump in.

[The Douche]

I was a member in the Chicago area in 2003, and let my membership lapse after a year. For most, it seems membership entails nothing but mailing in a ballot sheet every year and paying dues. I was more active in their autonomous youth branch, YPSL, and managed to reestablish their web presence, as their website was broken and unfinished at the time.

Looking at their site now, it looks like YPSL is in a "state of reorganization" for a few months. It does seem like a good time for real revolutionaries to jump in.

When I was involved with the SP I was also encouraged to join YPSL with a few friends, I was told that me and my 5 or so friends could probably take the leadership of YPSL and make the organization whatever we wanted. This was probably around 2005.

[Crux]

Wouldn't this be pretty good arguments as to why you should not join the SP? I can sympathize withe The Human Condition and chegitz but I am not sure if the Socialist Party is really where the relevant struggle is taking place.

[chegitz guevara]

There are certainly more important struggles to engage in that the fight in the SPUSA for a democratic organization, true. But, the SPUSA as an experiment in uniting different revolutionary tendencies, rather than each tendency having its own organization is certainly one worth supporting. Just because something are more important doesn't mean that things with less importance aren't important at all.

[mikelepore]

From the SPUSA platform:


and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces

I'm glad these socialists spend at least one-tenth of one percent of their time mentioning something related to the adoption of socialism, and I hope it doesn't detract too much from the 99.9 percent of their literature that is irrelevant to the subject of socialism.

If we had an algebra teacher who was most of the way through the course before beginning to mention algebra, we would note the frittering away of the time available for learning. The political left needs to understand the same thing. Using a flawed theory of learning, much of the left thinks that the way to teach people socialist concepts is to refrain from mentioning these concepts except very rarely.

By a parity of reasoning, perhaps this post of mine has successfully conveyed the major principles of chemistry to everyone. After all, it didn't mention the subject at all.

[Revy]

It's interesting to see that opponents have now resorted to blatant lies. Now the SP-USA doesn't ever mention socialism. lulz.:rolleyes: Maybe you should read the Statement of Principles (http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Calm down you two. Mike comes from one of two "Impossibilist" perspectives that wants only socialist production in a political program.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

does it have to explicitly say expropriate?

Workers and consumers are nearly the same thing. you have to work to consume(obviously the disabled would get help from the state/community even if they are not working, same with the elderly and children) . and if these people control production and all the rest of that. is that not socialism?

[mikelepore]

I don't assert that the Socialist Party NEVER mentions socialism. The problem is that the subject occupies only about one-tenth of one percent of the content of its speeches and articles.

On the rare occasions when it does mention socialism, the topic never goes beyond slogans that have the depth of bumper stickers. There is no mention that the workers need to set up any organizational structures that could assume control of the means of production. There are no proposals about how the transfer of administrative authority to the workers can be achieved. There is no discussion about democratic procedures for industrial management, to avoid luring the workers into a rerun of the USSR's disaster.

[The Douche]

I don't assert that the Socialist Party NEVER mentions socialism. The problem is that the subject occupies only about one-tenth of one percent of the content of its speeches and articles.

On the rare occasions when it does mention socialism, the topic never goes beyond slogans that have the depth of bumper stickers. There is no mention that the workers need to set up any organizational structures that could assume control of the means of production. There are no proposals about how the transfer of administrative authority to the workers can be achieved. There is no discussion about democratic procedures for industrial management, to avoid luring the workers into a rerun of the USSR's disaster.

Which is why the revolutionaries in the party are making the call for other revolutionaries to join?

The party has a socialist foundation but a reformist leadership, that can be changed.

[chegitz guevara]

does it have to explicitly say expropriate?

Workers and consumers are nearly the same thing. you have to work to consume(obviously the disabled would get help from the state/community even if they are not working, same with the elderly and children) . and if these people control production and all the rest of that. is that not socialism?

I have to agree with Comrade Lepore that the SPUSA program and literature tends to be rather lacking. Ben Seattle has pithily put it: ambiguity always favors the ruling class. I think those are words to live by.

I do think we should be far more explicit with what, why, and who of socialism, that it can only come about by overthrowing the capitalist state, etc. I do not think, however, that an organization should be rejected out of hand because it does not have the perfect program, because no organization does.

What is important is does the membership have a real possibility of struggling over its politics and line, and of changing it if they disagree. Most organizations don't. A disagreement with the organization's line generally means splits or expulsions or simply quietly leaving the organization. In the SPUSA, we can struggle to correct what Comrade Lepore, I think, correctly identifies as problems in our public politics.

It won't be easy, as the social democrats fight tooth and nail to maintain ambiguity, and the conventions are generally too short for a major discussion of what needs to be fixed in the principles, platform, and constitution. But it can be done.

[mikelepore]

It won't be easy, as the social democrats fight tooth and nail to maintain ambiguity, and the conventions are generally too short for a major discussion of what needs to be fixed in the principles, platform, and constitution. But it can be done.

The cause of the ambiguity isn't mysterious. In 1901 the Socialist Party of America, predecessor of the SP-USA, decided to admit applicants for membership who support numerous theories. Therefore you got stuck with the philosophical legacy left by the early 20th century leaders like Morris Hillquit, Algernon Lee, and Henry Slobodin, who "educated" the American people that the word "socialism" means having a public school system, a city-operated railroad and a water utility, thereby depriving the name of socialism of its revolutionary impact.

My former group, the Socialist Labor Party, made the serious error of going to the opposite extreme -- if the party elevates 500 ideas to the supposed rank of fundamental principles, and the applicant for membership agrees with 499 of them but disagrees with one statement, as revealed by a battery of oral examinations, then the application for membership is denied. So they end up with an extremely small membership who all think and talk almost exactly alike.

Surely the correct course is somewhere between these two extremes. A few fundamental principles must be adhered to without compromise, but minor details of interpretation must not be raised to the level of being fundamental.

[chegitz guevara]

I think we are in agreement. Point is, we can change it.

[Tower of Bebel]

To all SP-USA members; what would you think if a party like the CWI (SA) would work within the SP-USA?

[chegitz guevara]

There is a prohibition against internal democratic centralist tendencies (or dual membership with DC organizations), so the CWI would either have to agree not to be DC or they couldn't be in the Party.

[Zeus the Moose]

To all SP-USA members; what would you think if a party like the CWI (SA) would work within the SP-USA?

Under the current rules, Chegitz is right. However, there are comrades who want to change the blanket ban on democratic centralist groups to something that deals with these on a more case-by-case basis. While I think that might be somewhat problematic to implement consistently, I have supported measures in the past that would eliminate the blanket ban, and I will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

For Socialist Alternative specifically, I can't really see political differences that would put them outside the scope of Socialist Party membership. I've heard things about their supposed inability to work well in coalitions, but I haven't been involved in any coalition work with them so I don't want to pass judgement on that point (besides, even if it was true at some point, like it arguably was with the ISO in the 1990s, things can change over 10-20 years). I'm not sure if Socialist Alternative would be interested in joining us as a tendency/faction/whatever, but I'd be open to the possibility.

On a related note, our current co-chair is a former member of Socialist Alternative (possibly when it was still called Labor Militant, not sure when the name switch happened.) If this ever came to pass, I'm sure he'd have some interesting things to say on the subject.

[chegitz guevara]

How did he swing so far to the right from SA? :blink:

[Zeus the Moose]

How did he swing so far to the right from SA? :blink:

No idea. However, because he originally came from Socialist Alternative, I was hopeful he'd be a new voice on the left of the party. Boy was I wrong.