Sp usa

[Stephen Colbert]

Apparently I just learned that the SP USA HQ is close to where I live in New York. I was reading up about them and they seemed to be interesting and a fine organization, but to what extent does this group espouse radical leftism and not just a social democratic approach to domestic and foreign political affairs?

Pardon my ignorance, but I do have a strong desire to become a member of the left in a more global fashion, and I was wondering comrades experiences and perspectives on this apparently approachable leftist organization.

[Q]

The SPUSA is one of the few parties around with a healthy multi-tendency tradition. There is a social-democratic wing, but this is in the decline. The revolutionary left is on the rise. Chegitz, who is a member, can probably tell you more.

[Zanthorus]

If you are a Left-Communist you probably won't have much luck in the SPUSA which is left of capital.

[Jazzhands]

In the early 1900s, the SPUSA was a mere social-democratic party, although Debs was a pretty good socialist, and the CPUSA was the actual revolutionary party. Today, it's switched completely. The CPUSA has endorsed Obama, and the SPUSA has actually become, as Q said, a healthy multi-tendency party. The best party I can think of in the US is actually the Socialist Equality Party that runs the WSWS. Too small, though.

[chegitz guevara]

We have a fair number of left-communists in our organization, mostly Luxemburgists. We also have anarchists, Trotskyists, revolutionary Marxists, etc.

Officially, the SPUSA is a revolutionary organization, and few in the party openly oppose the revolution or claim the term social democrat (though you will find some). Objectively, however, there is an opportunist wing which, while acknowledging that we need a revolution, believes that if we "shout socialism to the rafters" to quote one, that we will turn people away, never mind actually use the "R" word. While they frequently claim to be against the tyranny of the left in the Party, they act rather autocratically when in authority (as they are currently). When out of power, they vigorously oppose majority rule.

There is a centrist middle, which, when given a choice to vote on policy, votes revolutionary and Marxist. When the opportunists put their foot down, the centrists vacillate and waver for fear of a split, and a desire that we should all just get along.

Then there is a fractured left wing composed of many different revolutionary currents: left-communist, anarchist, Deleonist, Trotskyist, revolutionary Marxist, Luxemburgist, etc. Until recently, it was split into two tendencies: the Debs Tendency (more Trotskyist) and the Grass Roots Tendency (more left-communist). They have since faded away.

Right now, there are no organized tendencies, but there is a fight for the heart and soul of the Party between revolutionary and opportunist wings. Unfortunately, much of this struggle is not around politics, but around personalities who represent that politics. So, the opportunists are stronger than they would be on policy votes (where they tend to lose 2 to 1), but get elected then to carry out the policies they oppose (and being opportunists, they then don't). Though there's no organized tendency, the revolutionaries have begun to realize the threat and taken steps towards informal cooperation.

The great threat in our organization is the somewhat meteoric rise of Billy Wharton, formerly a member of Socialist Alternative (or something like that), but now leading the push to turn the SPUSA into another Solidarity/Green Party, at best, socialist in name only. His idea of socialist parties/organizations the SPUSA should model itself on seems to be groups like Die Linke, the Swedish Left, SYRIZA, etc.

Billy is an extremely likable person, very well spoken, handles himself well in interviews, is widely published, interviewed frequently, and is both editor of the paper and male co-chair. He has extreme power to shape the public perception of the organization, and he uses it. Most of our party's statements are written by him, and they show a marked turn from revolutionary socialism and Marxism towards a militant liberalism.

For example, his recent critiques of the Gulf oil well blowout attacked specific individuals (Obama, Salazar) or criminal practices at BP. While these are certainly important factors, focusing on them alone leaves people with the conclusion that it isn't the system that needs to be changed, merely a few bad apples. At the recent National Committee meeting, he was staunchly opposed to a statement written from a Marxist perspective which blamed capitalism, rather than corporations, crimes, and individuals (which you can read right here (http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/bpoilspill62010.html)). It passed 8 to 3, the three being Billy Wharton, and the other two delegates from NY (NYC, actually).

Which brings me round to the problem. As much as I want revolutionary comrades to join the SP-USA and help us toss the opportunist wing out of power (the Red Hundreds campaign), in NYC, you'd be surrounded by them. They run the show there, and some of them are even worse. I think it would probably be pretty isolating and alienating.

If you're up for that kind of struggle, I welcome you to join the fight for revolutionary socialism.

--------------

There was an anarchist tendency, the Direct Action Tendency, but they split away years ago to form the new SDS. There was an openly social democratic tendency, the Fist and Rose Tendency (yes, FaRT), but most of them either left voluntarily or were thrown out for grossly undemocratic actions, and they formed the new SDUSA.

[chegitz guevara]

In the early 1900s, the SPUSA was a mere social-democratic party, although Debs was a pretty good socialist, and the CPUSA was the actual revolutionary party. Today, it's switched completely. The CPUSA has endorsed Obama, and the SPUSA has actually become, as Q said, a healthy multi-tendency party. The best party I can think of in the US is actually the Socialist Equality Party that runs the WSWS. Too small, though.

In the early 1900s, the CPUSA didn't exist. There were two revolutionary socialist Parties, the SPA and the SLP, though both had reformist tendencies. In 1919, the SPA split three ways, and two of the splinters eventually because the CPUSA.

The WSWS can be a good place for analysis, but just as easily it can just be some sectarian screed against other socialists. But the SEP is a cult, formed from a tendency which sold out other communists, to the Libyan and Iraqi states, which then killed those ratted out. In the US, the Workers League, which later became the SEP, even had spies in other groups, in order to prove they were FBI and CIA fronts. Furthermore, the cult leader, David North/Green owns his own publishing company, and sufficiently advanced enough members get the privilege of working for him (the pay and benefits are excellent though, seriously).

I try, very hard, not to bash other groups, but cults I don't pull punches on. Them, the RCP, the SWP (US), can all slowly rot ... oh, they already are! :D

[Jazzhands]

I respect the WSWS analyses very much. I really don't know that much about the SEP, though, just that they publish the WSWS. What exactly are they a cult of? The RCP is a cult of Avakian, so what is the SEP? Can you provide me with any resources on them that prove this?

[Zanthorus]

We have a fair number of left-communists in our organization, mostly Luxemburgists.

Although I have great respect for Rosa L I wouldn't really regard her or most of the people identifying as "Luxemburgist" as being Left-Communists. Rosa was one of the members of the KPD who voted in favour of electoral participation at it's founding congress and she was killed before the other issues that defined the Communist Left (Opposition to united fronts and "yellow" trade unions) led to the splits in Germany and Italy. I'm not all that clued up on modern Luxemburgist organisations but most people I've met who identified mainly with Rosa were more like slightly lefter and less sectarian than usual Trotskyists (I think the SWP (UK) and the rest of the IST are also inspired to some extent by Luxemburg and they still put out criticisms of "ultra-lefts").

[ed miliband]

Is there any organisation in the UK with a make-up similiar to the SPUSA?

[BAM]

Is there any organisation in the UK with a make-up similiar to the SPUSA?

Probably the left-wing of the Labour Party, tbh, centred around Campaign/Tribune. Or maybe Scargill's Socialist Labour Party (?)

[Zeus the Moose]

Although I have great respect for Rosa L I wouldn't really regard her or most of the people identifying as "Luxemburgist" as being Left-Communists. Rosa was one of the members of the KPD who voted in favour of electoral participation at it's founding congress and she was killed before the other issues that defined the Communist Left (Opposition to united fronts and "yellow" trade unions) led to the splits in Germany and Italy. I'm not all that clued up on modern Luxemburgist organisations but most people I've met who identified mainly with Rosa were more like slightly lefter and less sectarian than usual Trotskyists (I think the SWP (UK) and the rest of the IST are also inspired to some extent by Luxemburg and they still put out criticisms of "ultra-lefts").

I think you are right in that the people Chegitz calls "left communists" in the SP-USA would likely not be considered left communists as such. However, they're not "soft-Trots" using the Luxemburgist name either, because there's a definite anti-Leninism to their politics.


Is there any organisation in the UK with a make-up similiar to the SPUSA?

On an organisation to organisation level, the SP-USA is friendly with the Scottish Socialist Party. I have personal sympathies towards the CPGB (the Weekly Worker group), as I really like their politics.

[ed miliband]

Probably the left-wing of the Labour Party, tbh, centred around Campaign/Tribune. Or maybe Scargill's Socialist Labour Party (?)

Chegitz is suggesting that the SPUSA has anarchists and left-coms in it. If the SPUSA is similar to the parties you have mentioned, surely they are in the wrong organisation?

[BAM]

Chegitz is suggesting that the SPUSA has anarchists and left-coms in it. If the SPUSA is similar to the parties you have mentioned, surely they are in the wrong organisation?

my own impression of the SP USA comes from my ex-girlfriend and her father, both Americans, who had been members. I have always had the impression that it's a democratic socialist party, as opposed to a Marxist one.

Maybe I got the complete wrong end of the stick, I don't know ...:confused:

[Zanthorus]

However, they're not "soft-Trots" using the Luxemburgist name either, because there's a definite anti-Leninism to their politics.

I think there is a difficulty here in that a lot of "anti-leninists" actually end up having leninist politics in the same way that a lot of "leninists" have politics which are quite far removed from old Vlad.

I get your point though.

[Zeus the Moose]

my own impression of the SP USA comes from my ex-girlfriend and her father, both Americans, who had been members. I have always had the impression that it's a democratic socialist party, as opposed to a Marxist one.

Maybe I got the complete wrong end of the stick, I don't know ...:confused:

Well, the SP-USA doesn't proclaim itself to be a Marxist party, so it's not in that sense. We don't have our own "history of shaving" for example (even if we did, the only two people that could probably be agreed on would be Marx and Debs, and that's a pretty drastic shaving progression ;)). In terms of political strategy however, I'd consider the Socialist Party to be a Marxist party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The great threat in our organization is the somewhat meteoric rise of Billy Wharton, formerly a member of Socialist Alternative (or something like that), but now leading the push to turn the SPUSA into another Solidarity/Green Party, at best, socialist in name only. His idea of socialist parties/organizations the SPUSA should model itself on seems to be groups like Die Linke, the Swedish Left, SYRIZA, etc.

Comrade, I think you were a tad too harsh on Die Linke. I don't see even the right-wing within Die Linke being cozy with something like the "Democratic" "Party" like what the former SP-USA right-wing was fond of.

How do the Debs and Grass Roots Tendencies compare with Die Linke's Socialist Left, Anti-Capitalist Left, Communist Platform and ["Anti-Revisionist"] Marxist Forum?

[Zeus the Moose]

I think you were a tad too harsh on Die Linke. I don't see even the right-wing within Die Linke being cozy with something like the "Democratic" "Party" like what the former SP-USA right-wing was fond of.

This is true, but we're not dealing with the former SP-USA right wing. The vast majority of active members who argued for supporting the Democrats have since left the Party, and I'd say that's a non-issue for the moment. The issue is around how the Socialist Party should be interacting with the broad "progressive" movement outside the Democratic Party (this being primarily the Greens.) The current SP right acts in a manner that implies near-uncritical support, such as the SPNY supporting Howie Hawkins' campaign for governor without making any criticism of Hawkins' platform. I personally think there is a place for socialists to support "broad left," progressive, or independent labour candidates in areas where socialist candidates are not running, but any such support should be done on the basis of our own platform, and as such necessitates criticism in places where the candidate's platform falls short.

As for Die Linke, I too agree that the Socialist Party should not be cutting itself off from them completely, though we should be focusing more on the tendencies inside Die Linke like the Anti-Capitalist Left and the CWI comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is true, but we're not dealing with the former SP-USA right wing. The vast majority of active members who argued for supporting the Democrats have since left the Party, and I'd say that's a non-issue for the moment. The issue is around how the Socialist Party should be interacting with the broad "progressive" movement outside the Democratic Party (this being primarily the Greens.) The current SP right acts in a manner that implies near-uncritical support, such as the SPNY supporting Howie Hawkins' campaign for governor without making any criticism of Hawkins' platform. I personally think there is a place for socialists to support "broad left," progressive, or independent labour candidates in areas where socialist candidates are not running, but any such support should be done on the basis of our own platform, and as such necessitates criticism in places where the candidate's platform falls short.

On a tactical basis, and I think THC "thanked" me for this, one should consider why the Greens insist on keeping their name. Although taken by a post-Maoist group, "Progressive Labor Party" would be a decisive shift in the "progressive" movement, and would actually garner more votes than a party with only a single theme for issues ("Green").

But yes indeed, this question of interacting with the "progressive" movement is very much like the debates between the various wings in Die Linke on interacting with the SPD and Greens.


As for Die Linke, I too agree that the Socialist Party should not be cutting itself off from them completely, though we should be focusing more on the tendencies inside Die Linke like the Anti-Capitalist Left and the CWI comrades.

For some reason you didn't mention the Socialist Left, influenced in no small part by the SWP's German fan club. :confused:

[Zeus the Moose]

That was an omission on my part, partially because I had gotten the Socialist Left confused with the Democratic Socialist Forum. Socialist Left seems like a group in the center-left of Die Linke, so perhaps.

[Crux]

We have a fair number of left-communists in our organization, mostly Luxemburgists. We also have anarchists, Trotskyists, revolutionary Marxists, etc.

Officially, the SPUSA is a revolutionary organization, and few in the party openly oppose the revolution or claim the term social democrat (though you will find some). Objectively, however, there is an opportunist wing which, while acknowledging that we need a revolution, believes that if we "shout socialism to the rafters" to quote one, that we will turn people away, never mind actually use the "R" word. While they frequently claim to be against the tyranny of the left in the Party, they act rather autocratically when in authority (as they are currently). When out of power, they vigorously oppose majority rule.

There is a centrist middle, which, when given a choice to vote on policy, votes revolutionary and Marxist. When the opportunists put their foot down, the centrists vacillate and waver for fear of a split, and a desire that we should all just get along.

Then there is a fractured left wing composed of many different revolutionary currents: left-communist, anarchist, Deleonist, Trotskyist, revolutionary Marxist, Luxemburgist, etc. Until recently, it was split into two tendencies: the Debs Tendency (more Trotskyist) and the Grass Roots Tendency (more left-communist). They have since faded away.

Right now, there are no organized tendencies, but there is a fight for the heart and soul of the Party between revolutionary and opportunist wings. Unfortunately, much of this struggle is not around politics, but around personalities who represent that politics. So, the opportunists are stronger than they would be on policy votes (where they tend to lose 2 to 1), but get elected then to carry out the policies they oppose (and being opportunists, they then don't). Though there's no organized tendency, the revolutionaries have begun to realize the threat and taken steps towards informal cooperation.

The great threat in our organization is the somewhat meteoric rise of Billy Wharton, formerly a member of Socialist Alternative (or something like that), but now leading the push to turn the SPUSA into another Solidarity/Green Party, at best, socialist in name only. His idea of socialist parties/organizations the SPUSA should model itself on seems to be groups like Die Linke, the Swedish Left, SYRIZA, etc.

Billy is an extremely likable person, very well spoken, handles himself well in interviews, is widely published, interviewed frequently, and is both editor of the paper and male co-chair. He has extreme power to shape the public perception of the organization, and he uses it. Most of our party's statements are written by him, and they show a marked turn from revolutionary socialism and Marxism towards a militant liberalism.

For example, his recent critiques of the Gulf oil well blowout attacked specific individuals (Obama, Salazar) or criminal practices at BP. While these are certainly important factors, focusing on them alone leaves people with the conclusion that it isn't the system that needs to be changed, merely a few bad apples. At the recent National Committee meeting, he was staunchly opposed to a statement written from a Marxist perspective which blamed capitalism, rather than corporations, crimes, and individuals (which you can read right here (http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/bpoilspill62010.html)). It passed 8 to 3, the three being Billy Wharton, and the other two delegates from NY (NYC, actually).

Which brings me round to the problem. As much as I want revolutionary comrades to join the SP-USA and help us toss the opportunist wing out of power (the Red Hundreds campaign), in NYC, you'd be surrounded by them. They run the show there, and some of them are even worse. I think it would probably be pretty isolating and alienating.

If you're up for that kind of struggle, I welcome you to join the fight for revolutionary socialism.

--------------

There was an anarchist tendency, the Direct Action Tendency, but they split away years ago to form the new SDS. There was an openly social democratic tendency, the Fist and Rose Tendency (yes, FaRT), but most of them either left voluntarily or were thrown out for grossly undemocratic actions, and they formed the new SDUSA.
Just judging from this Wharton would seem more like a centrists than someone on the proper right of the party. I always reserve a little hope in my heart for centrists to turn the right way (being to the left, of course) under pressure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That was an omission on my part, partially because I had gotten the Socialist Left confused with the Democratic Socialist Forum. Socialist Left seems like a group in the center-left of Die Linke, so perhaps.

This is indeed important, because the North Rhine-Westphalia caucus is headed by the duo of Socialist Leftist Baerbel Beuermann ("radical and realistic") and Anti-Capitalist Leftist Wolfgang Zimmermann.

[Atlee]

my own impression of the SP USA comes from my ex-girlfriend and her father, both Americans, who had been members. I have always had the impression that it's a democratic socialist party, as opposed to a Marxist one.

Maybe I got the complete wrong end of the stick, I don't know ...:confused:

In 1999 when I first joined SP-USA is was very much like you wrote BAM, but over the last few years it has been taken over by more youthful and revolutionary forces. The language of their current website does not match the actual feel from the outside.

There are no more tendencies remaining within SP-USA that are fully functional and publicly accessible. In 1999 there were I think six tendencies.

I think anyone joining SP-USA should learn as much as they can before, during, and afterwards leaving, since there is an ebb and flow to membership and having mass meetings.

... during the edit of this posting I received an interesting phone call about the SP-USA so timing takes me to higher ground and I must stop here to make another chess move.

[chegitz guevara]

Just judging from this Wharton would seem more like a centrists than someone on the proper right of the party. I always reserve a little hope in my heart for centrists to turn the right way (being to the left, of course) under pressure.

Keep in mind it's relative. Inside the organization, they definitely form the right-wing, as the old right wing (folks like Atlee) are mostly gone or have become irrelevent. The old right's last bastion, the SP Wisconsin has a new, and revolutionary generation of activists, rising and growing. It's only a matter of time before the SPWI is on the left flank of the party.

Outside the organization, the opportunists link to overtly social democratic groups, like DSA, CCDS, the Greens, etc. They aren't interested in anything to their left. For example, the SPNYC is all excited to learn how to do electoral campaign working on the Howie Hawkins campaign, but had zero interest in working on the PSL's Francis Villar campaign for mayor of NYC. They won't even discuss it. I think PSL does a damn good job of showing what a socialist electoral campaign should look like.

I think it's becoming more overt. Today, for example, in an internal discussion on the Swedish Left's stunt about declaring itself the Welfare Party (for a day), Wharton stated that the SPUSA supports a welfare state. We do not. In our Statement of Principles it is quite clear that is not what we are aiming for. He has continually claimed that the Hawkins campaign is a socialist campaign, because it shares planks we have in our electoral platform, even though Hawkins mentions socialism no where in his media (last I checked). He has previously argued that Jamaica was socialist under the Manley government. His politics, overtly, are anti-corporate, not anti-capitalist (what he thinks, who knows). His analyses are not systemic, but aimed at particularly odious aspects of the system. One gets no sense from him or those around him that we aim to overthrow the system.

Wharton argued the other day, when I called his politics militant liberalism, that arguing that Obama and Salazar being hauled before an international tribunal on the gulf oil spill couldn't be considered liberalism, militant or otherwise. I said nothing at the time, cuz I didn't need to do so for the discussion (over the oil spill statement), but I would argue that it precisely is liberalism, because it focuses on the actions of individuals, rather than arguing that the specific individuals were irrelevant, that whatever capitalist politician was in charge, the same things would have happened, because it's capitalism that's the problem, not individuals.

The problem is not Wharton, anymore than the problem was Stalin. He represents a trend in the Party, and is its chief representative and theoretician. If he didn't represent a trend in the organization, he wouldn't be a problem. It is this trend that needs to be defeated.

[Atlee]

Keep in mind it's relative. Inside the organization, they definitely form the right-wing, as the old right wing (folks like Atlee) are mostly gone or have become irrelevent. The old right's last bastion, the SP Wisconsin has a new, and revolutionary generation of activists, rising and growing. It's only a matter of time before the SPWI is on the left flank of the party.

Outside the organization, the opportunists link to overtly social democratic groups, like DSA, CCDS, the Greens, etc. They aren't interested in anything to their left. For example, the SPNYC is all excited to learn how to do electoral campaign working on the Howie Hawkins campaign, but had zero interest in working on the PSL's Francis Villar campaign for mayor of NYC. They won't even discuss it. I think PSL does a damn good job of showing what a socialist electoral campaign should look like.

I think it's becoming more overt. Today, for example, in an internal discussion on the Swedish Left's stunt about declaring itself the Welfare Party (for a day), Wharton stated that the SPUSA supports a welfare state. We do not. In our Statement of Principles it is quite clear that is not what we are aiming for. He has continually claimed that the Hawkins campaign is a socialist campaign, because it shares planks we have in our electoral platform, even though Hawkins mentions socialism no where in his media (last I checked). He has previously argued that Jamaica was socialist under the Manley government. His politics, overtly, are anti-corporate, not anti-capitalist (what he thinks, who knows). His analyses are not systemic, but aimed at particularly odious aspects of the system. One gets no sense from him or those around him that we aim to overthrow the system.

Wharton argued the other day, when I called his politics militant liberalism, that arguing that Obama and Salazar being hauled before an international tribunal on the gulf oil spill couldn't be considered liberalism, militant or otherwise. I said nothing at the time, cuz I didn't need to do so for the discussion (over the oil spill statement), but I would argue that it precisely is liberalism, because it focuses on the actions of individuals, rather than arguing that the specific individuals were irrelevant, that whatever capitalist politician was in charge, the same things would have happened, because it's capitalism that's the problem, not individuals.

The problem is not Wharton, anymore than the problem was Stalin. He represents a trend in the Party, and is its chief representative and theoretician. If he didn't represent a trend in the organization, he wouldn't be a problem. It is this trend that needs to be defeated.

The opinion and facts are way off base. But I'll humor you this one time with a question: What were my "old right" ways and opinions?

Keep in mind that I was helping the PSL's Francis Villar campaign for mayor of NYC. I was even trying to help advertise your website until your "new friend" chose to take a lower route. But this is just one of the divides we call each other "irreverent" by, is it not?

[BAM]

In 1999 when I first joined SP-USA is was very much like you wrote BAM, but over the last few years it has been taken over by more youthful and revolutionary forces. The language of their current website does not match the actual feel from the outside.

Ah, that makes sense now, time-wise.

[chegitz guevara]

The opinion and facts are way off base. But I'll humor you this one time with a question: What were my "old right" ways and opinions?

Keep in mind that I was helping the PSL's Francis Villar campaign for mayor of NYC. I was even trying to help advertise your website until your "new friend" chose to take a lower route. But this is just one of the divides we call each other "irreverent" by, is it not?

Atlee, engaging with you is a fruitless enterprise, as your capacity for veracity is not positively quantifiable. Dealing with you is like discovering that you've gotten something disgusting on your shoe.

[Q]

Atlee, engaging with you is a fruitless enterprise, as your capacity for veracity is not positively quantifiable. Dealing with you is like discovering that you've gotten something disgusting on your shoe.

Please refrain from flamebaiting.

[Zeus the Moose]

This is indeed important, because the North Rhine-Westphalia caucus is headed by the duo of Socialist Leftist Baerbel Beuermann ("radical and realistic") and Anti-Capitalist Leftist Wolfgang Zimmermann.

That is interesting to note, as (IIRC) the outcome of the North Rhine-Westphalian elections could be seen as a referendum on what Die Linke would do with regards to coalitions in western Länder. To me, it seem that if these leaders on the left of Die Linke will successfully hold against forming a coalition with the SPD and Die Grüne, then there is some indication that there are forces within the party that are unwilling to surrender independent socialist politics. Do you know if a government has been decided on, or are negotiations still happening?

[Crux]

Keep in mind it's relative. Inside the organization, they definitely form the right-wing, as the old right wing (folks like Atlee) are mostly gone or have become irrelevent. The old right's last bastion, the SP Wisconsin has a new, and revolutionary generation of activists, rising and growing. It's only a matter of time before the SPWI is on the left flank of the party.

Outside the organization, the opportunists link to overtly social democratic groups, like DSA, CCDS, the Greens, etc. They aren't interested in anything to their left. For example, the SPNYC is all excited to learn how to do electoral campaign working on the Howie Hawkins campaign, but had zero interest in working on the PSL's Francis Villar campaign for mayor of NYC. They won't even discuss it. I think PSL does a damn good job of showing what a socialist electoral campaign should look like.

I think it's becoming more overt. Today, for example, in an internal discussion on the Swedish Left's stunt about declaring itself the Welfare Party (for a day), Wharton stated that the SPUSA supports a welfare state. We do not. In our Statement of Principles it is quite clear that is not what we are aiming for. He has continually claimed that the Hawkins campaign is a socialist campaign, because it shares planks we have in our electoral platform, even though Hawkins mentions socialism no where in his media (last I checked). He has previously argued that Jamaica was socialist under the Manley government. His politics, overtly, are anti-corporate, not anti-capitalist (what he thinks, who knows). His analyses are not systemic, but aimed at particularly odious aspects of the system. One gets no sense from him or those around him that we aim to overthrow the system.

Wharton argued the other day, when I called his politics militant liberalism, that arguing that Obama and Salazar being hauled before an international tribunal on the gulf oil spill couldn't be considered liberalism, militant or otherwise. I said nothing at the time, cuz I didn't need to do so for the discussion (over the oil spill statement), but I would argue that it precisely is liberalism, because it focuses on the actions of individuals, rather than arguing that the specific individuals were irrelevant, that whatever capitalist politician was in charge, the same things would have happened, because it's capitalism that's the problem, not individuals.

The problem is not Wharton, anymore than the problem was Stalin. He represents a trend in the Party, and is its chief representative and theoretician. If he didn't represent a trend in the organization, he wouldn't be a problem. It is this trend that needs to be defeated.
Well, then that is the problem, not cutting to the core, you can very well start out attacking odious aspects of the system, but using that as a plank. As for the problems with the swedish Left party, I could write a fucking article on that. Hah, come to think of it actually I could, if you want a "report from a swedish socialist" or something.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is interesting to note, as (IIRC) the outcome of the North Rhine-Westphalian elections could be seen as a referendum on what Die Linke would do with regards to coalitions in western Länder. To me, it seem that if these leaders on the left of Die Linke will successfully hold against forming a coalition with the SPD and Die Grüne, then there is some indication that there are forces within the party that are unwilling to surrender independent socialist politics. Do you know if a government has been decided on, or are negotiations still happening?

SPD-Green minority government, probably with new elections a year from now.

Also, Oskar Lafontaine laid clear conditions for providing any kind of support for this minority government, most notably getting state security off from "monitoring" the regional Die Linke organization.

[Zeus the Moose]

As for the problems with the swedish Left party, I could write a fucking article on that. Hah, come to think of it actually I could, if you want a "report from a swedish socialist" or something.

I'd be interested in reading it, as well as trying to get it in an SP publication, or at least circulated among our IC members (if you'll consent to that.) I think it'd be good to hear voices that are critical of the Left Party that are actually from Sweden.

EDIT:

SPD-Green minority government, probably with new elections a year from now.

Also, Oskar Lafontaine laid clear conditions for providing any kind of support for this minority government, most notably getting state security off from "monitoring" the regional Die Linke organization.

Interesting, thanks for the info. Lafontaine's conditions do sound a little bit like a version of "red holding lines," though, which also seems like a slippery slope to coalitionism. Still, it's good to see that a fight is being put up.

[Crux]

I'd be interested in reading it, as well as trying to get it in an SP publication, or at least circulated among our IC members (if you'll consent to that.) I think it'd be good to hear voices that are critical of the Left Party that are actually from Sweden.

EDIT:


Interesting, thanks for the info. Lafontaine's conditions do sound a little bit like a version of "red holding lines," though, which also seems like a slippery slope to coalitionism. Still, it's good to see that a fight is being put up.
Sure, I know one of the leading Left Party members, Jonas Sjöstedt. was in the NYC SP branch, when he were in the states. Well-read guy, very knowledgable on the EU, insanely popular in his home town (scored something like 42% of the vote there when he stood for the eu parliament) and definately on the right of the party. He's also a possible coming head of the party.

[redSHARP]

i thought the SPUSA were a solid group trying to find themselves a solid ideology and has potential in growing and actually doing something. i would check them out

[chegitz guevara]

Don't get me wrong, we do "do stuff." We do not have a solid ideology, though, and that's actually one of the things that attracted me to the organization. No fear of being tossed out because I don't agree with the leadership, and freedom to really think about ideas and tactics, rather than having them force fed to you.

There's a struggle in the organization, but that's a good thing. It means its a living organization. Groups where everyone agrees are ideologically dead or are cults, receiving wisdom from on high.

I would rather be in the SPUSA with its constant struggle for a revolutionary proletarian outlook than be in an organization which already has all the answers.

[Atlee]

Atlee, engaging with you is a fruitless enterprise, as your capacity for veracity is not positively quantifiable. Dealing with you is like discovering that you've gotten something disgusting on your shoe.

I went from "old" to this? Not only are we the same age we are in the same direction. The difference here is how far left and out front one is verses the other. This is a fundamental difference across the left spectrum.

I talk to and interact with plenty of other leftist either on-line or face to face meetings. The "dealing" with is not my issue, it is yours and you have made your own bed. Maybe today it is your known guilt that is telling by your continuous hateful snips and snarky remarks that give you away.

What should be looked at are the numbers that turnover because of infighting like ours on the left. Until stupidity is resolved and there is a "fruitful" venture towards positive growth nothing can happen in any group let alone what we both actual call for to happen.

My efforts go to support a unified left-ward direction through all efforts. Us "old" guys are not as immortal as we once were and should leave that to the more youthful by supporting their immoral actions from a safe distance. I believe this is called, "Working smart and not hard"?

[Atlee]

Don't get me wrong, we do "do stuff." We do not have a solid ideology, though, and that's actually one of the things that attracted me to the organization. No fear of being tossed out because I don't agree with the leadership, and freedom to really think about ideas and tactics, rather than having them force fed to you.

There's a struggle in the organization, but that's a good thing. It means its a living organization. Groups where everyone agrees are ideologically dead or are cults, receiving wisdom from on high.

I would rather be in the SPUSA with its constant struggle for a revolutionary proletarian outlook than be in an organization which already has all the answers.

Just a side note here: Are you not the person who actually tossed me from the party without charge, trial, or appeal? As I remember you were from the signature from your hate-filled letter and nasty voicemail.

I do not think it wise to lie against comrades on their own website.

[syndicat]

one should consider why the Greens insist on keeping their name.

in California the Greens are a middle class political party. the various state parties and the national Green Party USA are not exactly the same thing and there have been tensions between them.

as to Howie Hawkins, he used to call himself an "anarcho-communist" and a follower of Bookchin despite being involved in the labor movement himself, I think. at one point the Bookchinites had tried to develop a Left-Green Alliance but this eventually fell apart.

before the split in the Socialist Party of America (party's original name) in 1919, there had been a very moderate "Marxist" wing that was purely social-democratic...people like Berger, Hillquit, John Spargo. this wing of the party drew in many middle class people.

then there was a radical syndicalist wing, that included Bill Haywood and others in the IWW. at the time of the split, the large syndicalist left of SPA split between the Communist Party and the SPA. when the Communist Party tried to capture in the IWW in 1924, the syndicalist SPers allied with the anarchists to defeat the Communists.

back in the '80s at some point i ran into some people in the SP who still claimed to be revolutionary syndicalists. but i've not had any contact with SPers in quite awhile.

[Zeus the Moose]

back in the '80s at some point i ran into some people in the SP who still claimed to be revolutionary syndicalists. but i've not had any contact with SPers in quite awhile.

I know a few members who would consider themselves supporters of revolutionary industrial unionism. Not sure how close that fits to revolutionary syndicalism in your book, but there are some folks out there still.

[genstrike]

then there was a radical syndicalist wing, that included Bill Haywood and others in the IWW. at the time of the split, the large syndicalist left of SPA split between the Communist Party and the SPA. when the Communist Party tried to capture in the IWW in 1924, the syndicalist SPers allied with the anarchists to defeat the Communists.

Although, I believe Haywood and a lot of other wobblies split off earlier, around 1912?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know a few members who would consider themselves supporters of revolutionary industrial unionism. Not sure how close that fits to revolutionary syndicalism in your book, but there are some folks out there still.

RIU emphasizes ties with the official political party-movement and the RIU itself being a de facto party-movement (if it too provides an alternative culture and makes key political demands). "Revolutionary syndicalism" doesn't.

[chegitz guevara]

Although, I believe Haywood and a lot of other wobblies split off earlier, around 1912?

Yes, because the IWW made opposing electoral activity a requirement for membership, while the SPA made supporting electoral activity a requirement for being an officer.

[syndicat]

You're confused. The IWW was a union. It had no such political position.

Haywood was removed from the national executive committee of the SP because of the hysteria by the party's right wing in the wake of the 1911 bombings in L.A. Haywood opposed that tactic but saw the McNamaras as class struggle fighters, forced into desperate measures by the steel corporations.

The ostensible reason given by the party's right wing for forcing Haywood out was his advocacy of "sabotage." But Haywood defined this as "conscious withdrawal of efficiency" as in a slow down, not property destruction.

You're apparently confusing this conflict with the 1908 fight with the DeLeonists over removing the political party clause. Originally the IWW had a clause stating it was necessary for workers to organize politically as well as industrially. But this led to a sectarian fight between SP and SLP to see which party could gain the upper hand within the IWW. So, in 1908 the IWW declared itself independent of all political parties or political organizations.

[syndicat]

RIU emphasizes ties with the official political party-movement and the RIU itself being a de facto party-movement (if it too provides an alternative culture and makes key political demands). "Revolutionary syndicalism" doesn't.

this distinction is a figment of your imagination....unless you're talking specifically about the DeLeonist SLP. but they don't get to define "revolutionary industrial unionism" since that's what wobs always used...and they were revolutionary syndicalists.

[Zeus the Moose]

this distinction is a figment of your imagination....unless you're talking specifically about the DeLeonist SLP. but they don't get to define "revolutionary industrial unionism" since that's what wobs always used...and they were revolutionary syndicalists.

That's why I asked. The couple people who consider themselves supporters of revolutionary industrial unionism are "partyist;" I guess they'd have to be considering they're members of the Socialist Party. To further your own point, though, I believe the Australian IWW uses the term revolutionary industrial unionist to describe their politics, and I'd imagine they have the same prohibitions on affiliation to political parties as the IWW as a whole does. Terminologically, it might serve to reserve the use of revolutionary industrial unionist to those Debsian and DeLeonist socialists who are partyist, as opposed to individuals and organisations that uphold the Charter of Amiens. But doesn't seem to correspond to how the terms are used by organisations today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Unionism" reeks of too many sellouts, and it's hard to distinguish between "trade unionism" and the old craft unionism in some cases.

Anarcho-syndicalism should perhaps be contrasted with political syndicalism or party-movement syndicalism.

[syndicat]

Haywood in 1911 was not partyist...and neither was Gramsci in the biennio rosso.

"Partyism" doesn't just mean seeing some reason to support a socialist political party, even in elections. It means you conceive of the transition to socialism in terms of the party taking state power. Revolultionary syndicalism conceives of the transition in terms of the mass direct activity of the working class, taking over industries and setting up organs of popular power.

thus IWWs in the SPA were not necessarily "partyist" just because they belonged to that party. It depends on their strategic conception of the revolution and how they see the role of their political organization. but partyism is inconsistent with revolutionary syndicalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For some reason you are stubbornly limiting your conception of a "party." Real party-movements also involve mass direct activity of the working class especially in policymaking, but also the subordination of lower administrative bodies to higher ones. Such organizations could set up organs of popular power as party organs; it's just that you'd have to be a party member to participate in the popular power.

[samofshs]

i want to be part of this conversation so badly, and i'm following every post, but i know next to nothing about it :(

[syndicat]

For some reason you are stubbornly limiting your conception of a "party." Real party-movements also involve mass direct activity of the working class especially in policymaking, but also the subordination of lower administrative bodies to higher ones. Such organizations could set up organs of popular power as party organs; it's just that you'd have to be a party member to participate in the popular power.

hence not class power or popular power. claims have often been made about alleged "limitations" on upper organs of decisionmaking....but somehow it never happens in real time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Revolultionary syndicalism conceives of the transition in terms of the mass direct activity of the working class, taking over industries and setting up organs of popular power.

You forgot to add: through industrial unions.

There's a difference between that and councils.

[syndicat]

You forgot to add: through industrial unions.

There's a difference between that and councils.

Forms of unionism. Any mass organization of workers created in the class struggle is a form of unionism. So, the British shop stewards movement of the World War 1 era was the main form of revolutionary syndicalism in UK at that time. This was independent of the official trade unions but was organized through councils of delegates, based on worker assemblies.

In the biennio rosso, the Turin Libertarian Group worked with the Marxian syndicalists in the Socialist Party to create a similar shop stewards movement, delegate councils, based on mass assemblies. This structure was independent of the FIOM (social democratic union) and workers in other unions could participate. Eventually it was used to take over and restructure the FIOM union branc in a more grassroots way. Taking over and democratizing unions was another revolutionary syndicalist tactic.

In the Russian revolution altho the revolutionary syndicalists did work within a number of unions, they were also a main influence within the Kronstadt Soviet -- one of the main centers of libertarian socialist influence in that revolution, and they also worked within the shop committee movement. This movement was also initially independent of the centralized Russian trade unions.

Unionism is a contradictory phenomenon, and has two tendencies, towards grassroots insurgency and mass participation, and towards bureaucratization. And it is the former tendency that revolutionary syndicalism favors.

In terms of the vision for self-managed socialism, i think the appropriate body of delegates for setting poliicy and making the ultimate decisions should be a congress for a region, a nation, whatever. As to soviet type bodies, these have been advocated by revolutionary syndicalists...for example Rocker's "Anarcho-syndicalism". but I think it's necessary to also have bodies thru which people as residents can participate and make decisions regarding their communities, rather than only bodies that represent workplaces, as you would have with a soviet-type system.

[Zanthorus]

but I think it's necessary to also have bodies thru which people as residents can participate and make decisions regarding their communities, rather than only bodies that represent workplaces, as you would have with a soviet-type system.

Actually the soviets were based on electoral regions not workplaces. In the 1918 constitution it states that there will be one deputy per one thousand inhabitants.

[samofshs]

i thought this conversation was supposed to be on the spusa :mad:

[syndicat]

Actually the soviets were based on electoral regions not workplaces. In the 1918 constitution it states that there will be one deputy per one thousand inhabitants.

you may be confusing the soviet congress with the local soviets. the soviets formed in 1917 were all on the principle of representing workplaces or military units.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Zanthorus is right, though. Despite the Bolsheviks coups d'etat of 1918, even the lower soviets as a whole were reorganized to be closer to the Parisian or Venezuelan communal councils than to factory committees.

[samofshs]

i thought this conversation was supposed to be on the spusa http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/angry.gif:mad::mad::mad:

[RedJersey]

Just chiming in here, I'd say radical unionists/syndicalists and libertarian socialists have always played a strong role in the SPUSA. If you read our principles they have some serious lib-soc planks and are openly hostile to authoritarian communism as well as liberal capitalism.

For the comrade interested in IWW and anacho-syndicalists (or revolutionary unionists of the not SIU model) I've been active in the IWW since the late 80's and currently serve on the board of Brandworkers International (an organization started by Wobs). Our Labor Commission chair is an IWW activist (Starbucks workers). We have our national organizing conference in August in Madison WI and workshops will focus on many topics, including street activism, anarcho-syndicalism and as well as many other topics.

You can read the principles from our site

[Atlee]

The conversation seems to have hit a fork in the road because the whole of page three has nothing to do with SP-USA in any sort of way.

This was a question of substance.

[chegitz guevara]

i thought this conversation was supposed to be on the spusa :mad:

It involves issues that involve our predecessor organization's relationship with the IWW. Also, as many of our current comrades are anarchists, libertarian socialists, revolutionary industrial unionists, etc., it touches of issues related to the current organization.

I'm actually kind of excited about the proletarian/class struggle direction a lot of anarchists are beginning to take. I think they would make a fine addition to our organization. More syndicalists, less cynicists!

[Atlee]

It involves issues that involve our predecessor organization's relationship with the IWW. Also, as many of our current comrades are anarchists, libertarian socialists, revolutionary industrial unionists, etc., it touches of issues related to the current organization.

I'm actually kind of excited about the proletarian/class struggle direction a lot of anarchists are beginning to take. I think they would make a fine addition to our organization. More syndicalists, less cynicists!

SP-USA is based on a government existence and this clashes with those opposed to any and all forms of government, including the party.

The IWW might make for another thread in relation to the historical SPA. This thread title is SP-USA which is the current party, not the past. In the spirit of current events tell us about this grand coming together of so many -isms and how this will work towards the future.

[chegitz guevara]

Atlee, how about you stop pretending like we are in any way, shape, or form, comrades, or that I have any obligation to you whatsoever or that you have any understanding of the Socialist Party?

[Atlee]

Atlee, how about you stop pretending like we are in any way, shape, or form, comrades, or that I have any obligation to you whatsoever or that you have any understanding of the Socialist Party?

I make no pretend that you and I are comradely in any such way shape or form. That is not my function here or anywhere. You have a personality conflict with me which is counterrevolutionary to the actual actions of forwarding socialism. That is not my problem or any member here's problem.

You are correct in that you have no obligation and I have witnessed this lack of obligation firsthand. I am speaking from my firsthand experience as an officer of the SPFL for three years. You don't have to like it and I don't have to like you. We both exist for the revolution and there is not greater cause.

[chegitz guevara]

i want to be part of this conversation so badly, and i'm following every post, but i know next to nothing about it :(

You can take part in a conversation by asking questions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alright, then: how come the platform hasn't been changed to reflect the crisis, contributions from party members and outside, etc.?

[syndicat]

Zanthorus is right, though. Despite the Bolsheviks coups d'etat of 1918, even the lower soviets as a whole were reorganized to be closer to the Parisian or Venezuelan communal councils than to factory committees.


and that had nothing whatsoever to do with actual worker power. these were party-controlled fake soviets you're talking about. in the spring of 1918 Bolsheviks overthrew varous soviets by military power after they lost elections. the new soviet scheme you refer to came into being during the period of one-party dictatorship and repression of other left tendencies. the soviets of 1917 were based on election from workplaces or military units. those were the only soviets that had anything to do with worker power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder why you didn't post something as substantive or more substantive than this in my coups d'etat thread. :confused:

[chegitz guevara]

Alright, then: how come the platform hasn't been changed to reflect the crisis, contributions from party members and outside, etc.?

The platform can only be changed at the convention. Conventions are usually only two days, which doesn't leave us enough time to do everything that needs to be done.

The platform, principles, and constitution all need revision, and we'll also be choosing a presidential candidate in 2011. Suffice it to say, we'll likely only get to two of those.

[Die Neue Zeit]

and that had nothing whatsoever to do with actual worker power. these were party-controlled fake soviets you're talking about. in the spring of 1918 Bolsheviks overthrew varous soviets by military power after they lost elections. the new soviet scheme you refer to came into being during the period of one-party dictatorship and repression of other left tendencies. the soviets of 1917 were based on election from workplaces or military units. those were the only soviets that had anything to do with worker power.

The problem with the "soviets of 1917" model (or more specifically the 1905 model, since Petrograd was party-centric) is that they disenfranchise people like retirees and the disabled. The 1918 constitution was a huge step forward towards giving back the franchise to these social groups, but instead of retaining the large-soviets model, there should have been more compact bodies like the Paris Communal Council (read: just skip all the way to Executive Committees and Central Executive Committees).


The platform can only be changed at the convention. Conventions are usually only two days, which doesn't leave us enough time to do everything that needs to be done.

The platform, principles, and constitution all need revision, and we'll also be choosing a presidential candidate in 2011. Suffice it to say, we'll likely only get to two of those.

How often are conventions held? I'd be disappointed if they're held less frequently than Die Linke's (once every two years).

[RedJersey]

every two years.

[syndicat]

The problem with the "soviets of 1917" model (or more specifically the 1905 model, since Petrograd was party-centric) is that they disenfranchise people like retirees and the disabled. The 1918 constitution was a huge step forward towards giving back the franchise to these social groups, but instead of retaining the large-soviets model, there should have been more compact bodies like the Paris Communal Council (read: just skip all the way to Executive Committees and Central Executive Committees).


you're looking at it too abstractly. it would be better to think in terms of different spheres of decision-making. The workplace is one sphere of decision-making and the neighborhood or city, another sphere of decision-making is the situation of people as residents, as consumers, as people who live within a certain ecological region.

i do agree with you that in principle there needs to be decision-making that derives from the situation of people as residents, consumers, citizens, people who depend on the eco system, etc. But this needs to be grounded in assemblies at the base, and it presupposes freedom of people to express their opinions and organize for them, or there is no real democracy. It also presupposes information and abililities to deal with the issues that must be dealt with. the mere fact of elections is completely inadequate as a concept of real democracy.

Plus, there still needs to be worker power over the various industries.

The trick, then, is to envision a program that can allow appropriate space and weight to these different spheres of popular power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Still, how can the retirees and long-term disabled affect production made by workplace-based bodies? Notwithstanding the possible disenfranchisement of the propertied classes, equal suffrage is violated in relation to everyone else.

[chegitz guevara]

every two years.

Unless a special convention is called. We had one in the 70s, when we had to change the name of the Party under threat of a lawsuit from SDUSA.

[Zanthorus]

Still, how can the retirees and long-term disabled affect production made by workplace-based bodies? Notwithstanding the possible disenfranchisement of the propertied classes, equal suffrage is violated in relation to everyone else.

To play devils advocate here, the factories in the early years of Russia were (at least nominally) managed by one representative from the factory committees, one rep from the supreme council of the economy, and one third the central federation of industry. So it was one representative of the workforce, one of society as a whole and one of the particular industrial sector.

These issues as well as the whole thing about political and economic representation are discussed by Bordiga here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm) and here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/soviets.htm).

[syndicat]

Still, how can the retirees and long-term disabled affect production made by workplace-based bodies? Notwithstanding the possible disenfranchisement of the propertied classes, equal suffrage is violated in relation to everyone else.


you're assuming that everyone is affected equally by decisions. that is false. there is no reason to have all decisions made by one single body. that would violate self-management. people need to be able to control the decisions that affect mainly them. people who work in workplaces need to manage those workplaces because most of the decisions there affect them more than others.

there are decisions about production that will affect others, such as the quality of the product, what isproduced, or pollution. but these all affect people in their role as consumer.

the eco-system is something that we all "consume" -- we drink the water, breath the air.

thus i believe the dual governance model is best. this is where there are two spheres of self-managed decision-making. there is the sphere of production, and there is the neighborhood, city and the regional commons where people live.

this is why i favor a system of participatory planning. under such a system people make requests for production, and these are articulated through neighborhood assemblies, city wide or regional congresses of delegates from neighborhood assemblies. and worker organizations develop plans for what they will produce. and there is then a society wide process of negotiation to reach a plan, using indicative prices.

and there are conditions that the worker organizations have to satisfy to retain their use-right to the means of production, such as keeping to a certain level of benefit per unit of cost. there are budgets and both consumers and worker orgs have to stay within their budgets, unless special circumstances lead the social decision-making bodies to allow temporary exceptions.

and some joint committee of worker and consumer reps won't work either...it is still a denial of self-management.

[samofshs]

the platform can only be changed at the convention. Conventions are usually only two days, which doesn't leave us enough time to do everything that needs to be done.

The platform, principles, and constitution all need revision, and we'll also be choosing a presidential candidate in 2011. Suffice it to say, we'll likely only get to two of those.
jello biafra

[Die Neue Zeit]

you're assuming that everyone is affected equally by decisions. that is false. there is no reason to have all decisions made by one single body. that would violate self-management. people need to be able to control the decisions that affect mainly them. people who work in workplaces need to manage those workplaces because most of the decisions there affect them more than others.

there are decisions about production that will affect others, such as the quality of the product, what isproduced, or pollution. but these all affect people in their role as consumer.

the eco-system is something that we all "consume" -- we drink the water, breath the air.

thus i believe the dual governance model is best. this is where there are two spheres of self-managed decision-making. there is the sphere of production, and there is the neighborhood, city and the regional commons where people live.

this is why i favor a system of participatory planning. under such a system people make requests for production, and these are articulated through neighborhood assemblies, city wide or regional congresses of delegates from neighborhood assemblies. and worker organizations develop plans for what they will produce. and there is then a society wide process of negotiation to reach a plan, using indicative prices.

and there are conditions that the worker organizations have to satisfy to retain their use-right to the means of production, such as keeping to a certain level of benefit per unit of cost. there are budgets and both consumers and worker orgs have to stay within their budgets, unless special circumstances lead the social decision-making bodies to allow temporary exceptions.

and some joint committee of worker and consumer reps won't work either...it is still a denial of self-management.

Let me put it another way with examples: the question of hiring more teachers or building more schools is something better left to geographic bodies than to workers production organizations. The question of taxation is also better left to geographic bodies than to workers production organizations. Ditto with defense militias and community enforcement of society's rules.

"There is no reason to have all decisions made by one single body"? I agree with you, hence why I wrote about parallelism in participatory democracy and about "sovereign socioeconomic governments" apart from those dealing with defense, national security concerns, etc.

[syndicat]

Let me put it another way with examples: the question of hiring more teachers or building more schools is something better left to geographic bodies than to workers production organizations. The question of taxation is also better left to geographic bodies than to workers production organizations. Ditto with defense militias and community enforcement of society's rules.


maybe. but i'm not sure that is the decision that it is appropriate for the community to make. what is relevant is that they want, say, smaller class sizes, more individualized instruction, or need to take account of an expanding population of children. it is best if the people most aware of what this entails, people who work in education, to come back with an estimate of what this would cost, including not only hiring more teachers but also more classroom space and so on. so the educational workers propose a plan to meet the requests. it shouldn't be a question of the community imposing an autocratic hierarchy of managers over them to plan these things....as is what happens now. in fact it's likely that a plan to expand numbers of teachers would take place as a response to a proposal from the teachers. it's not in their interests to have huge class sizes and they won't be able to be effective that way.

the community does ultimately have to decide if it can afford to expand numbers of teachers by a certain amount, given that there will be other public services they want. but that is a question about the community's overall collective consumption of social goods.

It is appropriate for the geographic bodies to control the defense militia, but what about production of the supplies and arms for them?

[pastradamus]

Is there any organisation in the UK with a make-up similiar to the SPUSA?

Well Id stay well clear of the labour party anyway. Time and Time again it has been proven that entryism in this party does not work. Have you considered TUSC or the SWP?

[Q]

Well Id stay well clear of the labour party anyway. Time and Time again it has been proven that entryism in this party does not work. Have you considered TUSC or the SWP?

TUSC is not a party, just an electoral coalition of SPEW, SWP and a few others. It officially still exists, but I don't know what kind of future it has.

[chegitz guevara]

jello biafra

I'm thinking Karl Marx (http://www.levyarts.com/). :D Seriously.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm thinking Karl Marx (http://www.levyarts.com/). :D Seriously.

Even in his current condition, I'd vote for him. Let's get Karl out of Highgate, clean him up a bit, do what ever we have to do to change the US constitution, and let him run.He'd be light years ahead of any candidate the ruling class could put up, even with being 130 years out of date w/current events. Volume 3 is almost a textbook account of what's happening now. If he has any questions, just have him watch Democracy Now! or read Counterpunch for a week or so.

Vladimir Ilyich is still above ground, sort of. wonder if there might be any interest?

[samofshs]

Even in his current condition, I'd vote for him. Let's get Karl out of Highgate, clean him up a bit, do what ever we have to do to change the US constitution, and let him run.He'd be light years ahead of any candidate the ruling class could put up, even with being 130 years out of date w/current events. Volume 3 is almost a textbook account of what's happening now. If he has any questions, just have him watch Democracy Now! or read Counterpunch for a week or so.

Vladimir Ilyich is still above ground, sort of. wonder if there might be any interest?
i wish i could thank you multiple times!!!:D:D:D

[pastradamus]

TUSC is not a party, just an electoral coalition of SPEW, SWP and a few others. It officially still exists, but I don't know what kind of future it has.

Well I think you absolutely hit the nail on the head there brother.. . .So....yeah what the quoted above says! :)

[theAnarch]

Even in his current condition, I'd vote for him. Let's get Karl out of Highgate, clean him up a bit, do what ever we have to do to change the US constitution, and let him run.He'd be light years ahead of any candidate the ruling class could put up, even with being 130 years out of date w/current events. Volume 3 is almost a textbook account of what's happening now. If he has any questions, just have him watch Democracy Now! or read Counterpunch for a week or so.

Vladimir Ilyich is still above ground, sort of. wonder if there might be any interest?

Personally, I always thought it was wrong that they pickled Lenin.

[chegitz guevara]

Personally, I always thought it was wrong that they pickled Lenin.

Yeah, he would have been better smoked. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

maybe. but i'm not sure that is the decision that it is appropriate for the community to make. what is relevant is that they want, say, smaller class sizes, more individualized instruction, or need to take account of an expanding population of children. it is best if the people most aware of what this entails, people who work in education, to come back with an estimate of what this would cost, including not only hiring more teachers but also more classroom space and so on. so the educational workers propose a plan to meet the requests. it shouldn't be a question of the community imposing an autocratic hierarchy of managers over them to plan these things....as is what happens now. in fact it's likely that a plan to expand numbers of teachers would take place as a response to a proposal from the teachers. it's not in their interests to have huge class sizes and they won't be able to be effective that way.

the community does ultimately have to decide if it can afford to expand numbers of teachers by a certain amount, given that there will be other public services they want. but that is a question about the community's overall collective consumption of social goods.

It is appropriate for the geographic bodies to control the defense militia, but what about production of the supplies and arms for them?

The thing with technological development and expansion of linear programming is that much of the role of workers planning councils in collectively planning production is rendered irrelevant. Planning can go beyond the limits of Gosplan, yet society wouldn't need either a new slate of Gosplan technocrats or a bloated number of workers planning councils.

[syndicat]

The thing with technological development and expansion of linear programming is that much of the role of workers planning councils in collectively planning production is rendered irrelevant. Planning can go beyond the limits of Gosplan, yet society wouldn't need either a new slate of Gosplan technocrats or a bloated number of workers planning councils.

uh, i don't think you understood what i was saying. I'm totally opposed to a separation of "planners" and "workers". that implies continued existence of a class system. workers need to be trained to plan, and they do the planning for their workplace.

we shouldn't want there to be anything at all like Gosplan. that would be a fundamental mistake.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You forgot the second part of that last sentence: "or a bloated number of workers planning councils." ;)

[Revy]

The SP-USA isn't perfect and has its share of issues. It's hard for me to defend it without bashing other parties and groups. What I will say is there is no other party with as much a commitment to democracy. If you like defending dictatorships, want to position yourself as a cult leader, then this isn't the party for you.

I might join another party or create my own but how would that really help? The SP-USA isn't like the Labour Party, it isn't even as reformist as Old Labour, there are revolutionary ideas, if you look for them, instead of looking only for stylish symbols and slogans.

There is some ideological conflict, because some people want to support Greens tactically as well as Socialist candidates, and a lot of people want only to support socialist candidates. But remember that the entire revolutionary left (especially Leninist) has always had a large portion of people who value the importance of a progressive third party alternative. But unlike certain groups, the SP-USA has run a socialist campaign every election year, instead of endorsing people like Ralph Nader and post-Nader Greens, so that says something, because we are more radical in that respect than some Leninist groups.

The future of the party could go to the left or to the right, but as in any party people of the left will have to work hard to make sure their ideas come on top. Democratic centralism in no way guarantees anything given how many Leninist groups out there are cults and greedy pyramid schemes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I had the unfortunate displeasure of encountering more pro-Green sentiments over in Proyect's blog:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hugo-haase-before-t138429/index.html

Tactical support of the Greens *might* only be an issue if and only if they became a Progressive and/or Labour Party.

[Sturzo]

Back to the SPUSA, I found some evidence of a Iowa branch of the SPUSA in Iowa City, but I can find no online references to them. Was this branch closed down? It seems that had some prominence in the 90s as far as 2008, if I am not mistaken.

[Zeus the Moose]

Back to the SPUSA, I found some evidence of a Iowa branch of the SPUSA in Iowa City, but I can find no online references to them. Was this branch closed down? It seems that had some prominence in the 90s as far as 2008, if I am not mistaken.

The Socialist Party did have a fairly strong presence in Iowa City during the 80s and 90s, particularly with having one of their members, Karen Kubby, sitting on the Iowa City council from 1988-2000-ish. However, it seems that this layer of activist drifted out of the Socialist Party in the past decade; by the time I joined the SP-USA (mid-2005), Iowa was not a strong state organisation. Not sure about the politics of the group, but the couple SP Iowa members I did know seemed like they would have been on the "old right" of the Party (ie, social democrats and soft on the Democratic Party).

As to recent activity, the Socialist Party's presidential ticket was on the ballot in Iowa, but that was due primarily to easy ballot access laws rather than much on the ground strength. At least, the Socialist Party is not organised in Iowa currently, though I'm sure there are at-large members.

[Atlee]

The SP-USA isn't perfect and has its share of issues. It's hard for me to defend it without bashing other parties and groups. What I will say is there is no other party with as much a commitment to democracy. If you like defending dictatorships, want to position yourself as a cult leader, then this isn't the party for you.

I might join another party or create my own but how would that really help? The SP-USA isn't like the Labour Party, it isn't even as reformist as Old Labour, there are revolutionary ideas, if you look for them, instead of looking only for stylish symbols and slogans.

There is some ideological conflict, because some people want to support Greens tactically as well as Socialist candidates, and a lot of people want only to support socialist candidates. But remember that the entire revolutionary left (especially Leninist) has always had a large portion of people who value the importance of a progressive third party alternative. But unlike certain groups, the SP-USA has run a socialist campaign every election year, instead of endorsing people like Ralph Nader and post-Nader Greens, so that says something, because we are more radical in that respect than some Leninist groups.

The future of the party could go to the left or to the right, but as in any party people of the left will have to work hard to make sure their ideas come on top. Democratic centralism in no way guarantees anything given how many Leninist groups out there are cults and greedy pyramid schemes.

I have to strongly and respectfully disagree with this statement since many including myself, Brian P. Moore (Presidential Candidate 2008), and many other socialists have been expelled, threatened, or forced away from the SP-USA affiliate SPFL under what we equate as a dictatorship. This is why many nationwide have begun a transitional process towards commonwealth of radical democracy being localism.

[Sturzo]

Well, that's a pity - I'm rather interested in the SPUSA. I guess it's really only progressive organizations in my area then.

[Atlee]

Not sure about the politics of the group, but the couple SP Iowa members I did know seemed like they would have been on the "old right" of the Party (ie, social democrats and soft on the Democratic Party).

This is not actually true, using the "rightist" term is de facto pejorative in nature and to date has had no basis in process of evidence. Here in Florida there was and still is plenty of name calling and in fact not one stitch of evidence or case has been enacted in the removal of party officers and potential candidates. For me, I help all revolutionaries across the board within my means. I do not ask them for an -ism pass or expect some made up purity test and requires ass kissing and shaking one's head "Yes" to whatever is said. I expect comrades to think and act for themselves according to their need and ability i.e. see that red bar for donations above? It is nice that we give, but it is not demanded or expected. I give when I have. I am not running around calling those who don't give "rightist". I accept people for who they are and work within realistic realms. When someone you thought was a friend uses a label as hate towards you in a personal attack how will you feel? What will you do? Demand truth, except nothing less.

[theAnarch]

This is not actually true, using the "rightist" term is de facto pejorative in nature and to date has had no basis in process of evidence. Here in Florida there was and still is plenty of name calling and in fact not one stitch of evidence or case has been enacted in the removal of party officers and potential candidates. For me, I help all revolutionaries across the board within my means. I do not ask them for an -ism pass or expect some made up purity test and requires ass kissing and shaking one's head "Yes" to whatever is said. I expect comrades to think and act for themselves according to their need and ability i.e. see that red bar for donations above? It is nice that we give, but it is not demanded or expected. I give when I have. I am not running around calling those who don't give "rightist". I accept people for who they are and work within realistic realms. When someone you thought was a friend uses a label as hate towards you in a personal attack how will you feel? What will you do? Demand truth, except nothing less.

Sorry kid but it takes discipline to make a revolution.....its starting to sound like you had a problem following the rules of a party so now your advocate local confederations and voting blocks between revolutionaries, social democrats, and ideological nazis (according to your website)

Id also like to point out that other posts you've made seem to suggest that you don't have any understanding of class differences. Ideologies and movements aren't things that just pop out of the air, there things created by one class to serve there interests.

[Atlee]

Sorry kid but it takes discipline to make a revolution.....its starting to sound like you had a problem following the rules of a party so now your advocate local confederations and voting blocks between revolutionaries, social democrats, and ideological nazis (according to your website)

Not even close. My website is part of my profession to reveal the differences between socialists groups. The media screws them all together and I really feel they (mainstream media) have done a great disservice to themselves and the public.

My break was with one personality for publicly calling him a coward. I still stand by my action and word to that effect.

I have no problems with rules, I do have a problem with those who lie to get around them or try and bend them without clarification.

I have been waiting years for my trial and Moore still has not been charged. There are plenty of people who followed the rules and are no longer part of this one personality's dictatorship e.g. tyranny of democracy. The Moore story was only partly described here from a one sided perspective. I have several sides (from many person's own words) to tell if anyone wants to read all the actions of what happened.

Then everyone here can see how the inner working happen and that truth has been revealed.

Since you brought up the website of a specific nature and your profile reveals your contacts I have to say, "You have been coached." Is there something more you would like to add to this conversation that would explain your sudden interest in addressing me directly?

[chegitz guevara]

Well, that's a pity - I'm rather interested in the SPUSA. I guess it's really only progressive organizations in my area then.

Keep in mind that with Atlee, if he says its sunny out, you should take your umbrella. Not so much that he's always wrong. He just pretty much always lies. This is a dipshit that pulled a picture off of a neo-nazi website to attack the female co-chair of the SPUSA. He's a scumbag. The best thing Atlee could do for the movement is to join the Tea Party and quit pretending to be a socialist.

[Q]

Atlee, chegitz guevara: I don't exactly know what has happened between you, although I hear a fragment of the story here and there. However, this constant sniping at eachother in discussions like these is extremely countrproductive. I suggest you make a thread in which you discuss your issues or shut up about them altogether.

[Atlee]

Keep in mind that with Atlee, if he says its sunny out, you should take your umbrella. Not so much that he's always wrong. He just pretty much always lies. This is a dipshit that pulled a picture off of a neo-nazi website to attack the female co-chair of the SPUSA. He's a scumbag. The best thing Atlee could do for the movement is to join the Tea Party and quit pretending to be a socialist.

That's funny as hell. Now I am going to tell you what you don't know, the day before, she (who has never met me or talked with me) referred to me in a backstabbing personal attack as "A little man". Like you, there was no rhyme or reason, just name calling without substance. I know you read the same email, so this is between us here, so I had discovered that someone also made her "the little man" and placed the shoe on the other foot. I read her and Greg's posting and the result was as expected. When you hate, you hate on everyone and the lesson is that no good can come from hate. You should know this because you talk about it all the time... YET you do not follow your own words. I don't use the word "hypocrite" often, but here it seems the shoe that fits you well. Even more so when Brian called me after reading your hate-filled posting on this very website that I help sponsor.

I have been a socialist since I was 14... that is a long time now that I am 43.

You are not the god of who is or is not socialist. I am sure to the nth degree that no one want to be your "Yes" man either, although it would be interesting to hear why you are using HATE LAW to keep the SPFL a private club holding socialists from joining unless they kiss your ass.

As I have suggested before, you are more than welcome to start a thread that is you verses me and we can see that you are a liar with a personal conflict with me who spreads hate. I believe Q the admin has already warned you twice not to make personal attacks and you wrote the policy at SP-USA about making personal attacks, YET here you are being a hypocrite. Put up or shut up.

[Atlee]

Atlee, chegitz guevara: I don't exactly know what has happened between you, although I hear a fragment of the story here and there. However, this constant sniping at eachother in discussions like these is extremely countrproductive. I suggest you make a thread in which you discuss your issues or shut up about them altogether.

I asked him before to do this. It seems to be a self-control issue. This is part of the his personal conflict with me. He cannot stand that I breath the same air.

The problem within this thread, SP-USA is that he does not want bad PR, but his problem is that he created his own negative PR by his own hand and even advertised his hate on RevLeft for those who disagree with him.

I speak of SP-USA as a former officer of three years and as a member of seven years total. So I speak from firsthand experience. If he does not like the truth then he needs to change his ways. I did not come here to pick a fight, but I have no problem posting my experience and his own words to show the person he really is away from RevLeft.

[chegitz guevara]

Atlee, chegitz guevara: I don't exactly know what has happened between you, although I hear a fragment of the story here and there. However, this constant sniping at eachother in discussions like these is extremely countrproductive. I suggest you make a thread in which you discuss your issues or shut up about them altogether.

My preferred method of dealing with Atlee is ignore him. However, when he intrudes on discussions about the SPUSA and then lies about it, it is necessary to point out to people who might otherwise believe him, that he is a liar.

Everyone wanted to know why Brian Moore suddenly went nuts, well, Atlee is the who put a bug in Moore's ear, telling Moore that Moore could do what he wanted, and how to do it (trying to replace elected officers and turn us over to the state's attorney).

This is a guy who claims the SPFL is a dictatorship because we throw shits like him and Moore out, after they decide to start acting dictatorially

In Atlee's case, he declared himself Chair of the state organization, on the basis of being the only officer left, the other two having resigned after Atlee either harrassed them out of the organization (the Vice-Chair) or told them they'd be going to jail for not filing a form on time (the Chair). He suckered me into being Secretary (before I found out this other stuff), and then decided my home was now the SPFL office, and proceeded to post my home address all across political websites. This, only a couple of weeks after I'd been attacked by a right-wing pro-Cuban terrorist mob in Miami.

Then Atlee proclaimed to the world that the SPFL had seceded from the SPUSA without consulting anyone. (He now claims, after the fact, it was a spoof).

He was expelled unanimously by the 2007 state convention of the Party, and we'd hoped that was the end of him. Sadly, Atlee can't seem to accept rejection. He has since stolen private emails from the state executive committee (because the then chair left the archives unlocked). He has set up fake websites claiming to be the SPFL, but then posting wildly incorrect information on them. He has mocked and stalked two mentally ill comrades in the Party.

He has supported Ron Paul. He has made supportive statements of the Tea Party. He created a neo-confederate group on MySpace. On his campaign website, he claimed to be a conservative (which he has since changed).

And if he'd leave the SPUSA, SPFL, and its comrades alone, he'd never hear another peep out of me.

[Atlee]

My preferred method of dealing with Atlee is ignore him. However, when he intrudes on discussions about the SPUSA and then lies about it, it is necessary to point out to people who might otherwise believe him, that he is a liar.

Likewise, I ignore chegitz because I know he has a personal conflict with me. And it is not about rules, policy, or how socialist I am.


Everyone wanted to know why Brian Moore suddenly went nuts, well, Atlee is the who put a bug in Moore's ear, telling Moore that Moore could do what he wanted, and how to do it (trying to replace elected officers and turn us over to the state's attorney).

Actually, that is a lie. I would like to read your evidence in court. Remember you claimed to be taking me to court. The problem is that if you disagree with or cannot be controlled chegitz you are out of the SPFL, plain and simple. What transpired and connected Moore to me was YOU and YOUR actions and lack of proof when pressured. Moore knew at that point you were lying to him and you could no long control him, so of course, he had to go at all cost. Like the 15 member JAX Local you tossed under the bus when getting rid of me because I had the only local in the state at the time.


This is a guy who claims the SPFL is a dictatorship because we throw shits like him and Moore out, after they decide to start acting dictatorially

This is an easy lie to dispel for all reading this comment. After the break up and some wondering there were in fact several expelled, threaten, walk aways for the SP-USA who also wanted more socialism. We came together as a quasi-think tank and have been pulling together to create an open and free social network that has ZERO DICTATORSHIP controls and forces people like cheglitz to resolve issues knowing NO ONE CAN BE EXPELLED. The question that comrades here need to ask is then: Why is SP-USA so closed off and controlled?


In Atlee's case, he declared himself Chair of the state organization, on the basis of being the only officer left, the other two having resigned after Atlee either harrassed them out of the organization (the Vice-Chair) or told them they'd be going to jail for not filing a form on time (the Chair). He suckered me into being Secretary (before I found out this other stuff), and then decided my home was now the SPFL office, and proceeded to post my home address all across political websites. This, only a couple of weeks after I'd been attacked by a right-wing pro-Cuban terrorist mob in Miami.

Cry a river, want whine with that cheesegitz? What we have here is two views as to how our 2004 constitution was read. And nothing more. Again, a personal conflict issue. BUT we see how chegitz abuse the system and took power and became the actual dictator of the SPFL. So tell the comrades how you did it...


Then Atlee proclaimed to the world that the SPFL had seceded from the SPUSA without consulting anyone. (He now claims, after the fact, it was a spoof).

Both are wrong, it was a parliamentary vote of "No confidence" by three elected officers of the only local of the SPFL. Only you wanted control, so you bent the truth and did so without anything more than personal opinion. This is what happens when people do not think for themselves or know and understand procedures agreed to in writing and posted. Chegitz was simple ignorant and wanting.


He was expelled unanimously by the 2007 state convention of the Party, and we'd hoped that was the end of him. Sadly, Atlee can't seem to accept rejection. He has since stolen private emails from the state executive committee (because the then chair left the archives unlocked). He has set up fake websites claiming to be the SPFL, but then posting wildly incorrect information on them. He has mocked and stalked two mentally ill comrades in the Party.

No charges, no trial, no appeal... so how many comrades here would like their local police to pick them up and hand out life in prison sentences by people you have never met, have never known you, and are new to the cause?

I don't know about the whole "rejection" thing since the revolution make no man or woman an island. I work for a cause and you have exclude yourself, not the other way around.

The websites are very real. They just belong to an open and honest group. Not your dictatorship of Yesmen.

"Mentally ill"? Are you now trying to advertise something that I did not know? How pathetic and low you will stoop to backstab. I can only hope now those in Florida can see you for your hate that you would do such a thing by talk about their personal medical issues.


He has supported Ron Paul. He has made supportive statements of the Tea Party. He created a neo-confederate group on MySpace. On his campaign website, he claimed to be a conservative (which he has since changed).

Actually this is again chegitz ignorance showing. I am working on my Masters in Social Science so I seek out to all sorts of right-wing groups and personalities.

I still have my suspicions about the whole Myspace situation because there were THREE of me??? It seems SOMEONE was up to no good. I had all the accounts closed that I found and have not looked back.


And if he'd leave the SPUSA, SPFL, and its comrades alone, he'd never hear another peep out of me.

Not likely, we have too few open groups and our circles continue to cross. You will have to deal with me forever or leave socialism. Seeing this is not going to happen anytime soon you may want to just come clean???

[Proletarian Ultra]

If you read our principles they have some serious lib-soc planks and are openly hostile to authoritarian communism as well as liberal capitalism...

You can read the principles from our site

What a stupid document. It spends a fifth of the opening section echoing anticommunist boilerplate. That's a shameful waste.

PS: What's up with Attlee? I'm concerned for his well-being.

[chegitz guevara]

We, the Revolutionary Unity Group, a multi-tendency group of revolutionary socialists within the multi-tendency framework of the Socialist Party USA, believe that by bringing together our different traditions and experiences we can help renew the revolutionary aspects of our party and our movement.

Just when the global economic crisis is causing millions of people in the US and throughout the world to question the capitalist system and to be open to programs and strategies for fundamental social change, revolutionary principles and tactics both within and outside our party are floundering.

There is much of value in the various revolutionary traditions, but we need to create new ways of engaging in revolutionary struggle-- a process that will help forge a revitalized democratic socialist response to the critical issues of the Twenty-first Century.

In this spirit, we invite you to join us if you agree that…

1) we are in a time when people are increasingly interested in socialism. We should be shouting socialism from the rafters, not apologizing for it, or watering it down.

2) reforms advance our cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system. However, a reformist ideology that creates and supports the illusion that reforms are the path to socialism undermines our party and our movement;

3) Only the worker class can overthrow capitalism, because it is the producer class; Our work at the local and national level, as members of the SP-USA, must always be done within the context of international working class solidarity and with the objective of furthering the development of a global revolutionary socialist movement

4) “Broad Left Unity” is an opportunity for those who share revolutionary democratic socialist principles and programs to work together to build strong anti-capitalist networks at the local, national, and international level-- not about participating in formations geared toward accommodating those who accept the amelioration of capitalism rather than its overthrow;

5) the Democratic Party has been a sink-hole for the U.S. Left for generations. Instead of colluding with this, or any other capitalist party, our electoral efforts should be focused on building a mass-based, multi-tendency, democratic socialist party. In the event that a broad, non-socialist reformist party is formed, the Socialist Party USA would not participate in its deliberations or endorse its candidates;

6) it is the duty of socialists to expose the barbarity of the capitalist system in its entirety. Such liberal constructs as “fair trade” and “green capitalism” are contradictory, and obscure the fact that “fairness” and the reclamation of the environment are of no interest to the ruling class;

7) Socialist Party candidates must identify themselves as party members and explicitly uphold the principles, and put forward the platform, of the SP-USA. Whenever possible, Socialist Party members who stand as candidates would do so on the Socialist Party ticket, and not as candidates of reformist parties such as the Green Party;

8) SP-USA outreach materials, including party statements and national publications (print and electronic), must clearly represent the Statement of Principles, the party platform, the will of the most recent national convention, and the diversity of the membership;

9) forthright debate of political and strategic differences is part and parcel of democracy. Adhering to feminist process can help create a positive atmosphere conducive to full participation by group members in discussion and decision-making, where opinions are expressed without recourse to personal attack.

10) the basic objectives and strategies of the Black, Women’s, and Gay liberation movements of the 1970’s are as relevant now as they were then, and should be an integral part of the mission and work of the Socialist Party USA.

Revolutionaries unite! We have a world to win!

[Lolshevik]

Congrats on launching the Revolutionary Unity Group. Do you have a webspace for the public non-Party crowd to view, or like an internal communications structure for SPers who want to join?

[chegitz guevara]

We're working on it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Will the "rug" hold its own conferences in addition to the usual conventions so that questions of program can be raised? Will the "rug" form its own political program to complement the main SP-USA program?

[Sorry for the excessive puns, but at least "rug" is better than "fart," which I think Chester is apart from his political positions. ;) ]

[chegitz guevara]

RUG is fun. but I was pushing for the Socialist Renewal Group, SRG, or Surge!

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for my serious questions above?