Social Democrats Socialist Party USA ?

[tiny]

Are these guys just liberals and progressives? Or genuine socialists?

It says they broke off of sp-usa.

socialdemocratsusa.org

I'm all for reforms and bettering working conditions, as long as the big picture isn't lost or betrayed.

Any info on these guys would be great, thanks!

[graymouser]

You have to understand a bit of the SP history to get where this is coming from. The old Socialist Party had three caucuses, two of which were oriented to the Democratic Party - the Unity Caucus led by Max Shachtman and the Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington - as well as one that was independent oriented, the Debs Caucus (whose leaders included Dave McReynolds and Frank Zeidler). By the 1972 convention, Norman Thomas, who was the leading force for party unity, had been dead 4 years and Shachtman had died earlier in the year. The Unity Caucus took leadership of the party and named it "Social Democrats USA." They had become known as "State Department Socialists" for backing US foreign policy in Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere. The Coalition Caucus broke off to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which went on to become today's Democratic Socialists of America. The Debs Caucus formed a new party, the Socialist Party of the United States of America (which refers to itself as the Socialist Party USA). SDUSA had some trade union bureaucrats and even members of the Reagan Administration (!) but it has withered away.

For the last 10 or so years the SPUSA has moved to the left, although in a vague and confused way. There was a period about 5 or 6 years ago when the faction fights in the SP oriented themselves around a handful of declared "tendencies" - the Grassroots Tendency and the Debs Tendency seeing themselves as more or less Marxist, the Direct Action Tendency being more anarchist and the Fist & Rose Tendency advocating membership in the (social democratic) Socialist International. DAT moved out first, and included people who went on to refound SDS and MDS. Fist & Rose followed, with the members trying to reclaim the name of the old SDUSA that had ceased to function. It's quite a right wing organization and I'm not sure why any revolutionary would want to be any part of it.

[mikelepore]

I'm all for reforms and bettering working conditions, as long as the big picture isn't lost or betrayed.

Determining how to do that is a difficult problem. If we advocate reforms in such a way that we cause people to draw the conclusion that a string of capitalist reforms is the "path" to socialism, then the big picture is lost. But if these reforms are NOT the "path" to socialism, then why not just work for a pro-reform group on Mondays and Wednesdays, and work for a socialist group on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that is, why should the socialist group itself sponsor those reform ideas?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mike, you're missing one key element, and that is working-class political power, a political concept quite distinct from a socialist economy.

Almost no string of capitalist economic reforms can be a "path" to working-class political power (unless it's something like the wholesale nationalization of FIRE: finance, insurance, and real estate).

Re. your last question, which you have raised before: at least some socialist groups have dedicated commissions specifically for certain reform issues. I would, for example, like to see a party-organized commission centered around zero unemployment (not "full employment" or "right to work" in either progressive or regressive interpretation): Right to Zero Unemployment would have at its core Minsky's public-employer-of-last-resort proposal, with things like progressive taxation and public works programs attached to the sidelines.

This could connect with one or two other party-organized commissions centered around other labour issues, like a shorter workweek (with no loss of pay or benefits), living wages, or cost of living adjustments.

[Zeus the Moose]

graymouser has things about right; the "Social Democrats- Socialist Party USA" originated as a right-wing "split" from the SP-USA. In actuality, this split was basically just one person, who was expelled from the SP-USA for being forming a competing organisation (this SD-SPA, which has now more or less taken up the banner of the old SDUSA as well.) A couple other ex-Socialist Party members came around the SD-SPA for a while, though I don't know if they're still involved.

For the most part, the "Social Democrats- Socialist Party USA" is just a website, and I don't think it exists outside the internet (and the heads of its few "members.") I wouldn't give it much of a serious look, except as an example of how stuck in the past some people can be.

EDIT 30/5/10: It seems as if the Social Democrats USA has gone through its own problems of splits and faction fights. As of today (5:11pm ET on 30 May 2010, in case the site changes), looking at the "About Us" part of their page lists a number of "former officers," but no current ones: http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/aboutus.shtml I find this somewhat ironic, as the "refounder" of SDUSA, a man by the name of Gabe Ross, tries to dissuade people from joining the Socialist Party USA by claiming that the entire organisation is a "floating faction fight."

Again, if you're looking at various socialist groups to think about one to join, I wouldn't pay much attention to SDUSA/SD-SPA/whatever the group is being called these days. As your profile says you're in DC, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (www.freedomroad.org (http://www.freedomroad.org)), the Party for Socialism and Liberation (www.pslweb.org (http://www.pslweb.org)), and the Workers International League (www.socialistappeal.org (http://www.socialistappeal.org)) might be of interest as they say they have branches in DC. The Socialist Party USA (www.socialistparty-usa.org), which I am a member of, isn't organised in DC at the moment, but has locals in Charlottesville and Baltimore.

[Red Gabe Ross]

Let's try to understand this, shall we. I joined the Young Peoples' Socialist League on my 16th birthday. That was 38 years ago, last Friday. At that time it was the youth wing of the original Socialist Party, USA. When the organization became the Social Democrats, USA, I stayed a member and have been one ever since. A fact I shared with anyone interested including the SP of the USA's national secretaries. The Party had been the Socialist Party of America until 1956, when it became the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation and then, in 1962, it became the Socialist Party, USA. SP of the USA members usually deny this, but one of my comrades posted the 1962 convention minutes to the internet archives. In 1974 I joined the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and I remain a member of DSA, and re-formed Socialist Party, USA (That group has used the name Socialist Party of the United States of America since 1977 to avoid legal conflicts with the SD,USA that kept title to the SP,USA name. Most members SP of the USA members deny this is the name of their Party, but it can be found in the Party's Constitution at its website, under national office. The national secretary of the SP of the USA attempted to trademark that name in 2008) Also in 2008, the Socialist Party's National Executive Committee ordered my local of the SP of the USA to expel me and they refused. They then order the Socialist Party of PA to expel me. They refused. The expulsion order had nothing to do with starting a rival organization as the SD pre-dated the SP of the USA, but was based on 1984 convention resolution banning dual membership in the SP of the USA and the SD, USA. When the SP of PA. of which I was chair at the time, refused to expel me the national leadership the NEC revoked the charter of the state party, the largest in the nation, and then expelled me. As the SP of the USA has less than 500 members, if there were the splits as many members pretend, there would be no one left.

Graymouser has the history fairly correct as to the 1972 split and after. My only caveats would be that the SD saw Communism as a greater threat to workers than Western Monopoly Capitalism. We were absolutely right in that assessment. Joining the neo-cons and finally the Reagan administration, as some SD'ers did, was way beyond the pale however. Second, I would not call two successive presidents of the AFL-CIO, i.e. Kirkland and Sweeney, and dozens of its executive committee members, "some trade union bureaucrats." Both the neo-cons and the AFL leaders are gone as is any involvement with U.S. intelligence.

In 2005, the SD leadership stopped functioning and I was asked by several SD comrades to keep the group alive. A majority of these folks were never members of the SP of the USA. Many PA comrades joined us as they saw how democratic centralist the SP of the USA had become. Expulsion procedures were under taken against them including two of the last eight founding members of the new SP. Those fellows delayed their expulsions by dying, though they will no doubt be posthumously expelled. The rest of the members in PA just did not renew their dues in the SP of the USA. I don't think there is a single member of the SP of the USA left in PA.

The SD, USA soon under went its own faction fight between those who took the old SP, USA line of not dealing with democratic centralist organizations and those who had cultural ties to the CP,USA. The latter group made up about half the officers. They went on dues strike and ordered the membership to follow them. Only one dues paying member obeyed. The former officers then expelled all dues paying members and formed their own group which has no dues, no mailing address, and no phone. I stress these people were not expelled; they quit. When they began cozying up to Leninist groups here and abroad we distance ourselves from them.

Glenn Beck attacked the SD, USA-SP,USA mission statement is on his Earth Day show. His attack is on the home page of our website. It went viral quickly. Since then we have gained new members and tons of criticism by the Tea Party, the SP of the USA, and the new SD,USA( Marxist-Leninist). We have only been around as the revived organization for a year as oppossed to DSA and SP of the USA that have been around for 37 years. If after 5 years we are smaller than we were to begin with, as is true of both DSA and SP of the USA, I will hang it up.

Should revolutionaries join us? Absolutely not! We forbid membership to anyone who advocates violence when any other means is open

I know there will be many abusive comments coming my way, but after weeks of death threats from Tea Baggers, I think I am up to it. It was in following Tea Bagger comments that I came on these posts.


Gabriel McCloskey-Ross, director Social Democrats, USA-Socialist Party, USA:D

[RadioRaheem84]

You won't get death threats from us, man. We're not what the media makes us seem as the "far-left" equivalent to right wing nut job groups. We actually engage in debates with our opponents, not threaten to bomb them.

Look, the SD-USA made a huge mistake in thinking that Communism was somehow more dangerous than monopoly capitalism. Now that the red menace is gone neo-liberalism has rampaged the world bringing it back to early twentieth century standards in terms of concentration of wealth and disparity.

How do you guys neglect the CIA sponsored coups that replaced communists, democrats, socialists, etc. with right wing despots? The War in Vietnam? The support of the Contras? The Soviet Union would have never even dreamed of the type of carnage, even under Stalin, with what the Suharto regime, Saddam's Iraq, Operation Phoenix, the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, the Shah and Pinochet regime, all did to the working class worldwide. And then your party's support for the Iraq War was horrible!

How on Earth did the SD-USA come to the conclusion that supporting the West in it's endeavors to stomp out Communism was better than supporting the working class? The only way I can think of it is that your organization was infiltrated by people of the US intelligence and steered toward garnering support for US anti-communist operations abroad.

Mr. Ross, more than ever a united front is need to go up against a swarm of anti-LEFTIST, right wing zealot nut job movements that are growing because of the erroneous belief that liberalism = socialism. You do not need to distance yourself so much from other socialists.

Although, are you guys really socialists? I mean you guys seem more like liberal social democrats that want something close to Sweden which is still a capitalist country. You guys seem more Third Way than socialist too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Guys like Mr. Ross implied something more sinister with his "anyone who advocates violence when any other means is open." What he really meant to say was "anyone who advocates illegal means" (civil disobedience, illegal strikes, etc.). That's why US social-democrats are so chummy with the Democrats.

[graymouser]

The Party had been the Socialist Party of America until 1956, when it became the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation and then, in 1962, it became the Socialist Party, USA. SP of the USA members usually deny this, but one of my comrades posted the 1962 convention minutes to the internet archives. In 1974 I joined the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and I remain a member of DSA, and re-formed Socialist Party, USA (That group has used the name Socialist Party of the United States of America since 1977 to avoid legal conflicts with the SD,USA that kept title to the SP,USA name. Most members SP of the USA members deny this is the name of their Party, but it can be found in the Party's Constitution at its website, under national office. The national secretary of the SP of the USA attempted to trademark that name in 2008)
This is irrelevant except as an odd provocation, as the Social Democrats USA explicitly stopped using the name "Socialist Party" at the end of 1972, and the group that was constituted in 1973 has been referred to in short as the "Socialist Party USA" just like the Communist Party of the United States of America is called the Communist Party USA and not the Communist Party of the USA.


Graymouser has the history fairly correct as to the 1972 split and after. My only caveats would be that the SD saw Communism as a greater threat to workers than Western Monopoly Capitalism. We were absolutely right in that assessment. Joining the neo-cons and finally the Reagan administration, as some SD'ers did, was way beyond the pale however.
Workers in the former deformed workers states of East Europe and the degenerated workers state of the USSR (which Gabe calls "Communism") have been objectively worse off under "Western Monopoly Capitalism" than they ever were under the Stalinist regimes. Why you think this position is vindicated is beyond me.


Second, I would not call two successive presidents of the AFL-CIO, i.e. Kirkland and Sweeney, and dozens of its executive committee members, "some trade union bureaucrats." Both the neo-cons and the AFL leaders are gone as is any involvement with U.S. intelligence.
Excuse me for the omission. The SDUSA had some extremely high ranking trade union bureaucrats, who collaborated with the CIA in Latin America and helped to sell out the class struggle in the strikes of the '80s that began the downward slide of the trade union movement ever since. (As an aside, I knew about Kirkland but not Sweeney - who currently identifies with DSA and not SDUSA.)


I don't think there is a single member of the SP of the USA left in PA.
I know a few, who have joined since the SD split. And given that the SPUSA has a large inactive "paper" membership I'm sure there are more.


Should revolutionaries join us? Absolutely not! We forbid membership to anyone who advocates violence when any other means is open
I find that point of honesty refreshing. The SPUSA's own ideology is so vague that a number of young revolutionaries join it without quite understanding what they're getting into. (I should know, I was one of them.)

[chegitz guevara]

Really, you need to know two things about SDUSA and Gabe Ross.

First, no one cares about them. They are less than insignificant. If you forget they exist, you're not missing anything.

Second, his version of events is so at odds with reality it's pointless to even try to untangle it.

What you do need to know is that "Red" Gabe Ross is a right-wing social democrat, which means he's violating forum rules by posting here, and that he's so obnoxious, that the group he got thrown out of the SPUSA for rebuilding in turn threw him out.

Greymouser pretty much has it correct. Add it to what Zeus the Moose has written, and you know everything you need to know.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow, so he's not even a left wing social democrat? I figured this was so when I read that they hosted an event with Paul Berman, the pro-war liberal hawk, and some third way trade union. Penn Kemble was a right wing social democrat type that supported Reagan in his efforts against the Sandanistas. He was a representative of Freedom House for crying out loud!

He also helped found the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a right wing Christian think tank!

Yeah, SD-USA was largely a front for the intelligence community and people like Gabe Ross are picking up the pieces.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most active social-democrats (as opposed to passive ordinary folks with social-democratic tendencies) tend to be of the right-wing variety, as evidenced by pro-war positions.

[Red Commissar]

I'm just curious what tea baggers were watching our site like that.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Since then we have gained new members and tons of criticism by the Tea Party, the SP of the USA, and the new SD,USA( Marxist-Leninist).

This has to be a come-on. There isn't really an SD-USA(M-L), is there?

[thomasludd]

This has to be a come-on. There isn't really an SD-USA(M-L), is there?

i can't even imagine that an organization would name itself that

[chegitz guevara]

No, Gabe is just calling the SDUSA that because they threw him out for trying to be a petty autocrat. He and Atlee Yarrow are the two members of the "true" SDUSA. :laugh:

[Proletarian Ultra]

No, Gabe is just calling the SDUSA that because they threw him out for trying to be a petty autocrat. He and Atlee Yarrow are the two members of the "true" SDUSA. :laugh:

Damn. I got exceited there for a minute. :lol:

[chegitz guevara]

I think SDUSA(ML) would be the CPUSA.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I think SDUSA(ML) would be the CPUSA.

I was picturing a bunch of dour union reps and midwestern aldermen waving around little red books. :laugh:

[Revy]

The "social democrats" (basically anyone who actively identifies as a social democrat) in the USA are almost always supporters of the Democratic Party.

The SP-USA no longer has a social democratic tendency (faction) within it. That is because there was a split and they left the party and supported Obama.

The Socialist Party USA was founded after the Socialist Party of America split into three groups. The SP-USA was the only one of those groups to carry into a new generation the Debsian legacy of an independent socialist party, the other two (DSA and SD,USA) advocated supporting the Democratic Party. With the exception of 1984 (when the party supported the Sonia Johnson ticket of the Citizens Party, a predecessor to the Greens), the Socialist Party USA has run an independent socialist campaign in every election year since 1976.

That is significant when you see all the revolutionary left groups that will support Nader or the Greens under the logic that these campaigns provide some kind of an alternative, when socialism is never mentioned in those campaigns.

Despite the existence of some social democrats in its history, the SP-USA is an anti-capitalist party, that only needs to be developed and strengthened ideologically.