New Rev Tendency in the SPUSA

[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!

[The Douche]

Even though its been a long time since I was around the SP it still holds a place in my heart and I'm glad to see revolutionaries start to organize within it again.:thumbup1:

[DaringMehring]

What are the prospects for this group within the SP?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's the relationship between this group and the Debs Tendency? :confused:

[Zeus the Moose]

What's the relationship between this group and the Debs Tendency? :confused:

The Debs Tendency has basically been phased out, and a number of former DT members are now in Revolutionary Unity. In many respects, the RUG is a fusion of the two previous left/revolutionary tendencies in the SP (the Debs Tendency and the Grassroots Tendency), along with a number of new folks.


What are the prospects for this group within the SP?

It's a little hard to say. In the two weeks or so since we went public, we've gotten a number of comrades inside the Socialist Party who have expressed interest in joining RUG, as well as one or two folks who either have just joined or will most likely join the SP. On the other hand, a couple RUG members with leadership positions within the SP have been (mildly) targeted for their supposed "partisanship," which is somewhat frustrating because it reinforces that it's okay to have different ideas, so long as you don't actually organise around your perspective. By my take, the successes of the RUG will be measured by our ability to recruit and organise people within the SP, and how well we can bring people out to the next national convention (October 2011, most likely) to fight for a revolutionary perspective, as well as elect people who will actually carry it out.

[robbo203]

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;!

It all depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesnt it? If you imagine socialism has something to do with state taking over the commanding heights of industry or whatever then forget it. You would not then pose any threat to capitalism whatsoever but would represent just another version of the same thing - state capitalism.

So then - what exactly do you mean by socialism?. If it does not entail getting rid of the wages system then it aint worth pissing on . Though on second thoughts that will certainly help in "watering it down"

[Die Neue Zeit]

RUG: Get a broom, and sweep as much dirt as possible under the rug. ;) :D

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

We, the Revolutionary Unity Group, a multi-tendency group of revolutionary socialists within the multi-tendency framework of the Socialist Party USA,

Sounds like a Russian Doll situation.

[graymouser]

A multi-tendency tendency? Oy vey.

The SPUSA left wing is a weird, eclectic formation, and I say that as somebody who spent quite a bit of time in it. I don't see how any coherent revolutionary formation could come about in a party that accepts memberships right off the Internet. And in terms of policy, the SP left wing has always had a number of people who advocate working in the IWW, not the actually existing labor movement.

Also: you guys are uniting with Chester? Things must be bad, I left the party in no small part because I realized my main allies were from the Grassroots Tendency.

[bcbm]

looking forward to the letter(s) about splits in purges in a couple months

[chegitz guevara]

RUG: Get a broom, and sweep as much dirt as possible under the rug. ;) :D

One of my suggested slogans was to "sweep social democracy under the RUG!"

@graymouser, yes, Chester is in our tendency. Chester is particularly good at analyzing a political situation. His problem is his solutions are almost always, "Attack!" Sometimes that's the correct solution, but more often than not, the same goals can be accomplished without bludgeoning people into submission (says a person who is considered one of the most combative in the Party).

@bcbm, it's rather unlikely that the right could mobilize the forces to expel the left. While they have considerable authority to shape Party statements, they don't actually have much power. They rely on the centrists to maintain what little power they have, and the centrists' hearts are revolutionary. They just want unity and so they engage in bad compromises. But they wouldn't cotton to an expulsion of a significant section of the Party.

And while individual comrades might become frustrated and quit, RUG isn't interested in fighting its way out of the organization.

For me the purpose of RUG is threefold.

1. Bring the SP into the 21st century and modernize it. The Party is very amateurish and ad hoc in its activities, organization, mobilization, presentation, etc. This would also include an education program and raising the level of political discourse in the Party.

2. Bring more revolutionary comrades into the Party, both new and experienced. The various revolutionary currents in the socialist movement need to share information horizontally. Frankly, I think there is much to learn from the organizing experiences of the New Communist Movement, the Trots, the anarchists, the left communists, etc. I'm less interested in which historical leader you claim allegiance to and more interested in what you can teach me that will help me bring down the Empire and make a socialist revolution.

3. Defeat the anti-democratic wing of the organization. We've nothing to learn from them, except as a negative example. They can be just as effective in that role outside the Party. If they would behave in a democratic and principled manner, we could co-exist, but they refuse whether or not they have authority. They have proven through their deeds that even in periods where the socialist movement is so weak that it numbers less than 10K in the USA, we cannot have unity. Unity can only exist on the basis of democracy, and they won't follow majority rule.

@roobo203, I don't think it's for us, in this period, to define what socialist society will look like. The revolutionary masses will decide what form socialist society takes, regardless of what a priori dogma we decide to create. Thus, I have little interest in making one. My hope is that we "let a hundred flowers bloom" and have tens of thousands of experiments in creating socialist society. What woks, we keep. What fails, we abandon. All I can predict is that socialist society will not be what we imagine it to be.

@DaringMehring, I think the prospects are pretty good. That depends of course, on how we conduct ourselves. If we focus largely on the positive changes to the Party we'd like to make, I think we'll do very well. If we get bogged down in a partisan fight with the social democrats, I don't think we'll do so well. Personally, I think the best way to defeat them is to out organize them and be more constructive for the movement. Which isn't to say they don't need to be shown for what they are.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The SP-USA needs a revolutionary-centrist tendency committed to the Kautskyan strategy of patience and to the Kautskyan prescription of a workers-only membership. :p ;)

[gorillafuck]

And in terms of policy, the SP left wing has always had a number of people who advocate working in the IWW, not the actually existing labor movement.
The IWW is a great organization and it would be good to see it expand.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As part of the Kautskyan political strategy I'd like to see the SP-USA consider the WIIU more or create its own red union, since the IWW is so anti-political.

[Q]

As part of the Kautskyan political strategy I'd like to see the SP-USA consider the WIIU more or create its own red union, since the IWW is so anti-political.

With all due respect for Miles and his WPA, does the WIIU actually exist in reality?

[The Douche]

@bcbm, it's rather unlikely that the right could mobilize the forces to expel the left. While they have considerable authority to shape Party statements, they don't actually have much power. They rely on the centrists to maintain what little power they have, and the centrists' hearts are revolutionary. They just want unity and so they engage in bad compromises. But they wouldn't cotton to an expulsion of a significant section of the Party.

I know you have a different opinion of the situation than I do, but, its happend before. Our tendency was shut down undemocratically and it raised few eyebrows.

[Red Commissar]

Best of luck in overcoming the FaRT.

[Zeus the Moose]

Best of luck in overcoming the FaRT.

That's already happened. There are still one or two former FaRT members who are still in the Socialist Party, but they're not active in the party on a national level, and the political tendency represented by FaRT doesn't exist within the SP any more.

However, just as the revolutionary socialist movement isn't monolithic, social democracy isn't either. In the SP, the current right wing is a bit further to the left than FaRT was; few of the people actively opposing the left wing in the party are talking about tactical support for Democrats, for example (there are, of course, one or two exceptions.) Rather, the tendency is directed more towards "broad left" campaigns, such as uncritically supporting non-socialist candidacies that are independent of the Democratic Party, such as Howie Hawkins' campaign in New York. The Dan La Botz for Senate campaign in Ohio could be seen as a more mild example of this- La Botz is running as an open socialist and on the Socialist Party ballot line, but when it comes to the party question, his platform argued for the formation of a progressive, anti-corporate party rather than a socialist party.

Since the rhetoric is about independent politics, it at least looks to the left of the old SP right-wing. In addition, there isn't the admiration for SI parties that the old SP right-wing had, preferring to look towards groups like the Swedish Left Party. Nevertheless, their politics still orient towards strategic coalitions with "broad left," ie, non-socialist, groups to our right, and hostility toward organisations to our left.


The IWW is a great organization and it would be good to see it expand.

I see no problem with supporting groups like the IWW (and the WIIU, though I agree with Q that the rumours of the WIIU's resurrection have been somewhat exaggerated.) Still, graymouser has a point- it should be coupled with work inside the mainstream union movement.

[chegitz guevara]

As part of the Kautskyan political strategy I'd like to see the SP-USA consider the WIIU more or create its own red union, since the IWW is so anti-political.

One of the comrades in our local is in WIIU, and at our recent state convention we passed a resolution in support of revolutionary industrial unionism as one means by which to build a socialist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rather, the tendency is directed more towards "broad left" campaigns, such as uncritically supporting non-socialist candidacies that are independent of the Democratic Party, such as Howie Hawkins' campaign in New York. The Dan La Botz for Senate campaign in Ohio could be seen as a more mild example of this- La Botz is running as an open socialist and on the Socialist Party ballot line, but when it comes to the party question, his platform argued for the formation of a progressive, anti-corporate party rather than a socialist party.

Since the rhetoric is about independent politics, it at least looks to the left of the old SP right-wing. In addition, there isn't the admiration for SI parties that the old SP right-wing had, preferring to look towards groups like the Swedish Left Party.

Sorry for sounding like a lighthearted ass tonight, but I think the social-democratic wing still needs to tighten up. There's no leader of that wing yet who can combine much-needed charisma with the equally much-needed rhetorical guts to polemicize against progressivism and say, "We want to overthrow capitalism." ;)

Everywhere we see failures: John McConnell, Bob Crow, Jean-Luc Melenchon, Brian Moore, Lars Ohly, the guys running the Dutch SP, etc. Only one figure has stood the test of time so far. And I do hope this man, not Chavez, will be the one to lead a new International to the left of the SI. :p

[graymouser]

The IWW is a great organization and it would be good to see it expand.
The IWW was, at one point, a tremendously important union. It organized many of the best and most militant workers across the United States, including the large number of displaced transient workers who crossed the country in search of jobs, and taught them how to fight. It became irrelevant following the Palmer Raids, and in its current formation is more of an anarcho-syndicalist grouplet than an actual industrial union.

In reality the organized layer of the working class is in the trade unions, shitty as they are, and people should be fighting for their reform rather than going off into fantasy red unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Therein lies the class-collaborationist bankruptcy of mainline Trotskyism and its "united front" fetish, going to the point of bending over for business unions.

[Crux]

Therein lies the class-collaborationist bankruptcy of mainline Trotskyism and its "united front" fetish, going to the point of bending over for business unions.
Have you ever done any oppositional work inside a union?

[chegitz guevara]

Have you ever done any oppositional work inside a union?

It's easy to say, not so easy to do. I was in the Teamsters in the 80s, and I kept my mouth shut. I didn't know about TDU at the time, and I wasn't eager to be part of a landfill.

[redasheville]

I'm doing oppositional work in a union. It isn't easy, you're right.

[Crux]

It's easy to say, not so easy to do. I was in the Teamsters in the 80s, and I kept my mouth shut. I didn't know about TDU at the time, and I wasn't eager to be part of a landfill.
I never said it was, comrade.

[chegitz guevara]

I was agreeing with you and illustrating the point.

[graymouser]

Therein lies the class-collaborationist bankruptcy of mainline Trotskyism and its "united front" fetish, going to the point of bending over for business unions.
Hey, I wish the class struggle were taking almost any other form, but the truth is that most active workers' struggles in the US are led by trade unions. The reality is that the "red union" strategy was tried by the working class and overwhelmingly rejected after the 1920s. Being in a political organization pretending to be a union, like the IWW or "WIIU" today, is not participating at all.

[redasheville]

I agree with the statement above. However the IWW has had some successes in organizing independent unions.

[graymouser]

I agree with the statement above. However the IWW has had some successes in organizing independent unions.
What particular unions are you thinking of? I'm genuinely curious, the IWW efforts I am aware of were better at getting young left-wing kids to try organizing and lose their low wage jobs than actually forming stable, independent unions.

[redasheville]

What particular unions are you thinking of? I'm genuinely curious, the IWW efforts I am aware of were better at getting young left-wing kids to try organizing and lose their low wage jobs than actually forming stable, independent unions.

In Berkeley alone there is a print shop, a movie theater and the local recycling company that are unionized by the IWW.

[graymouser]

In Berkeley alone there is a print shop, a movie theater and the local recycling company that are unionized by the IWW.
Ahh. Yes, Berkeley would be a completely different world than the rest of these United States. :) I just wasn't aware of the IWW actually having successful unionizing campaigns, being most familiar with the now-defunct South Street Workers Union project in Philadelphia, and the Starbucks Union project in New York, neither of which actually has any traction on the ground. So my experience with the IWW has been entirely negative on the actual class struggle issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ahem:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/iww-organizes-sandwich-p1852895/index.html

What a way to spearhead unionization amongst fast food workers.


Hey, I wish the class struggle were taking almost any other form, but the truth is that most active workers' struggles in the US are led by trade unions. The reality is that the "red union" strategy was tried by the working class and overwhelmingly rejected after the 1920s. Being in a political organization pretending to be a union, like the IWW or "WIIU" today, is not participating at all.

Class struggles are political and not economic. The point of political red unionism (not every red union is political, see IWW vs. WIIU for the key difference) is to complement the official mass party-movement.

[graymouser]

Ahem:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/iww-organizes-sandwich-p1852895/index.html

What a way to spearhead unionization amongst fast food workers.
Working class victories are victories, yes. But the IWW does not have the means to actually do this on any mass scale, and going around promoting the IWW as an effective means of reviving the labor movement implies falsely that it does.


Class struggles are political and not economic. The point of political red unionism (not every red union is political, see IWW vs. WIIU for the key difference) is to complement the official mass party-movement.
I know you have this whole bizarre Kautsky thing going, but there is no mass party-movement. The 8% of real private sector workers who are organized in the United States are, probably over 99.99%, in traditional trade unions and not in the IWW (the only red union that has any meaningful membership). Adopting red unionism at this point means abstention from the class struggle as it involves those workers, and giving up on any attempts to lead those workers, who are the organized layers of the class.

It is possible that once there is a mass party, revolutionary-minded workers could be red-baited out of unions, or that unions will affiliate directly to the party; I don't object to that out of principle. But it's a totally unreal orientation in 2010 in the United States to be talking about red unionism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know you have this whole bizarre Kautsky thing going, but there is no mass party-movement.

The point is to build it then. However, typical "vanguard parties" can't do it, because they are not willing to be massive, nor are they willing to commit to alternative culture (cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc.) like the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD did. These two things require bureaucracy and institutionalization, but in the process realize the premise that real parties are real movements and vice versa.

[graymouser]

The point is to build it then. However, typical "vanguard parties" can't do it, because they are not willing to be massive, nor are they willing to commit to alternative culture (cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc.) like the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD did. These two things require bureaucracy and institutionalization, but in the process realize the premise that real parties are real movements and vice versa.
These are somewhat odd claims, but they actually happen to be untrue. For instance, the Healyites in Britain - the absolute worst sectarian Trots you could EVER find - were fond of setting up amateur football / soccer clubs; heck, I think some of them are still around. I know a number of US Trotskyist groups have worked in alternative culture experiments, primarily during the '60s and '70s when that was really a going thing. Mike Alewitz, a mural artist who was with the SWP for quite a while, gives a very good talk on creating a workers' culture. The problem isn't an unwillingness, it's the fact that these are very, very small parties that don't have the resources and the capabilities to create a working-class subculture.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's why you need a mass party in the first place (you need to somehow recognize those "inactive" folks who nonetheless contribute money).

Although I don't think Die Linke is willing to commit to alternative culture, I think it is in a very good logistical position to do so.

[chegitz guevara]

You know, we can't just will a mass party into being.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know that.

[Q]

I know that.
You´re not communicating very clearly how you think we should build them then.

[thriller]

Well anyhoot... I'm excited about RUG, or as the the members are debating amongst themselves Revolutionary Unity. What ever it's called, I have some high hopes for it. However there seems to be a little too much debating between people in the group and not with us vs. the right wing and upper class. If we can get RUG members on to committees and commissions, we'll be able to voice our opinions within the Party.

Ohh and here in Madison we have a print shop run unionized by the IWW and are trying to get Jimmy John's on board as well. And if anyone feels that the IWW is too small and insignificant, why not get involved and do something rather than complain about it on a website?

[Martin Blank]

With all due respect for Miles and his WPA, does the WIIU actually exist in reality?

With all due respect, I cannot answer that question. The WPA withdrew its endorsement from the WIIU three months ago in protest over the ex-SLPers wanting to run the show their way and not being willing to submit questions to the membership. We're discussing our options in regards to revolutionary industrial organization, in the context of an ongoing discussion about communist strategy and tactics in the 21st century.

[Q]

The WPA withdrew its endorsement from the WIIU three months ago in protest over the ex-SLPers wanting to run the show their way and not being willing to submit questions to the membership.
Gee, history repeats :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Gee, history repeats :lol:

Yeah, I've heard it all already.

Anyway, this is off-topic, so let's take it somewhere else if there is to be talk about it.

[LeftistLord]

True and what USA needs is a socialist united party,
that would work as a vehicle in which the masses, the majority of americans who would like a real social, democratic system in USA for workers, by workers and in favor of workers and people, would have an organization in which to caste their votes every 4 years. However there is a catch-22 with this solution. The catch-22 problem is that the USA corporate fascist system thru the media and its other evil things it has, will not let a People's United Front. The media apparatus would denounce it as a cult or an evil organization, and would spread dirty propaganda against it, just like it did and it has done many times against Ron Paul, Howard Dean and now against Obama.

But We first need: An educational-propaganda campaign
In order to create a third united socialist party we would first of all need an educational campaign in order to spread knowledge to the masses about the evils of capitalism, fascism and imperialism and the only alternative to it is participative democratic socialism. The American masses are real confused and ignorant about how the world works. Trying to wake up the masses from their delirium would pose us as a threat. I read the biography of Hugo Chavez and that's how he started his political program in order to change Venezuela. He first tried to wake up Venezuelan poors about the evils of neoliberalism, he talked about the importance of teaching the masses about capitalism vs. socialism. And then when Venezuelan's poors learned about capitalism, Chavez started to do his thing (To overthrow the fascist capitalist venezuela system)
And here in USA we gotta do the same thing that Chavez did, teach the US poor for some months or years what is capitalism and what is socialism before trying to do form any political party. Almost nobody in USA have taught the masses the evils of neoliberalism, not even Kucinich, Ron Paul or any other candidate. Ron Paul was the only one who talked about the US constitution and nobody listened to him, because he didn't teach the masses about the evils of capitalism, because of the fact that Ron Paul was a capitalist, not a real alternative for poor people. Only socialist and marxists parties do that in USA and they don't get much coverage in TV. So before starting a third party, i suggest to spend some months or years trying to teach the poor people of America about the evils of capitalism and the wonders of a participative democratic socialist system, a people's system





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!

[LeftistLord]

Hello, you know i play the lotto around where i live, and I have been mentally and emotionally destroyed by capitalism so hard, that if i win the lotto i will give it to The Socialist Party of USA and to the leaders of marxist-leninist, maoists, chaviztas bolivarian parties, castroists, trotskist and anarchist movements in USA in order to form a big united socialist front to see if they can use that money to buy a TV station or to spread socialist propaganda in USA for a presidential election. Americans need to be less stingy, less cheapy, and give part of their monthly income to a socialist workers party to see if we can get out of this hell of wars, fascism expensive health, expensive bills, taxes and misery.



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!

[LeftistLord]

I agree totally with you, socialism in USA would mean that all corporations in USA from the smallest business like barber shops, pizza restaurants, to the biggest like Exxon, Boeing and Wal Marts would be owned by workers, thru the system of workers-ownership and workers-control system of ownership, while at the same time the workers like teachers, nurses, car makers, floor cleaners, drivers, cooks, would be the political rulers of USA (i.e: president, vice-president, senators, congressmembers, military, justice system etc)

.


It all depends on what you mean by "socialism" doesnt it? If you imagine socialism has something to do with state taking over the commanding heights of industry or whatever then forget it. You would not then pose any threat to capitalism whatsoever but would represent just another version of the same thing - state capitalism.

So then - what exactly do you mean by socialism?. If it does not entail getting rid of the wages system then it aint worth pissing on . Though on second thoughts that will certainly help in "watering it down"

[genstrike]

And in terms of policy, the SP left wing has always had a number of people who advocate working in the IWW, not the actually existing labor movement.

Hmmm, I'll have to let the folks in the Starbucks Workers Union and the Jimmy John's Workers Union know that they don't exist.

[ellipsis]

Good luck comrade, this is a much better approach that splintering or being über-sectarian.

[chegitz guevara]

There is, sadly, a slight crab-bucket reaction against Rev Unity. That's to be expected. When ever you say, we could do better, there are some who want to hold everyone else back.

[thriller]

There is, sadly, a slight crab-bucket reaction against Rev Unity. That's to be expected. When ever you say, we could do better, there are some who want to hold everyone else back.

Do not worry chegitz. Where ever we go, we will be mocked, what ever we do, we will be condemned. We know this is a good thing for our party, as we allow people who arn't even socialist, but yet still revolutionary into RevUnity.

[graymouser]

Do not worry chegitz. Where ever we go, we will be mocked, what ever we do, we will be condemned. We know this is a good thing for our party, as we allow people who arn't even socialist, but yet still revolutionary into RevUnity.
What does this mean and why is it a good thing? Who in the SPUSA isn't "even socialist" by the relatively broad definition of that party? Are you talking about anarchists or something else entirely?

[chegitz guevara]

Are you talking about anarchists?

yep

[thriller]

One can be a socialist, anarchist or even communist, such as myself, and join the SP-USA. We don't have hard-line cadre devoted to Trotskyism or Leninism or whatever else, which means we can stay revolutionary by not becoming sheeple.

[Crux]

Or you can end up yet another discussion club. I hope you don't take any offense, but wasn't it in opposition to the lack of cadre in SPUSA that RUG was formed?

[Zeus the Moose]

Or you can end up yet another discussion club. I hope you don't take any offense, but wasn't it in opposition to the lack of cadre in SPUSA that RUG was formed?

I would agree with you on this (speaking as a member of RevUnity.) In the tradition that the Socialist Party comes out of, cadre is unfortunately a dirty word; it conjures up images of an unthinking drone doing the bidding of the central committee. This emphatically not what a cadre is. Rather, cadre are the advanced and capable revolutionaries-by-trade that help move a party forward, both in terms of its organisational work and its internal education.

(I'm pretty sure you know this, Majakovskij, but I think it bears repeating to the thread in general.)

Chegitz has pointed out before that one of the things the SP-USA needs is professionalisation and internal political education. From a certain perspective this means cadre development.

[crashcourse]

Comrades, Sounds great about the RU. I was very briefly close to the SP in the 90s, I know I participated in the YPSL email list, I can't recall if I formally joined or not. I was kind of flakey back then... Anyway, I still have affection for the SP and would love to see it prosper. If you can say anything publicly, I would like to know a bit about what prompted the formation of the RU.

I have several thoughts. On socialism and anarchism, I recommend the new book Black Flame, which argues that anarchism is a socialist tradition. I recognize that some actually existing anarchists are not socialists, some are downright anti-social, but the book is quite good on those traditions of anarchism which are socialist in character (I prefer the term "communist," personally). The political organization I belong to, the Workers Solidarity Alliance, is part of this tradition. We have a review of the book up on our web magazine, ideasandaction.info

A while back Chegitz listed three tasks he/she poses for the RU, if I remember right they were overhauling the SP, defeat a problem tendency in the SP, and recruiting. These are all worthy goals. I would respectfully like to suggest that the RU also seek to engage in a systematic and coordinated fashion with revolutionary fellow travelers who do not join the SP. I notice, for instance, that Chegitz lists the Kasama Project as a membership. Kasama seems to me an excellent example of a formation that is trying to bring together radicals who are not ready and willing to join the same organization or agree on a common line and yet who are still able to constructively interact.

About the IWW vs other unions - I don't think anyone is running around asking people to join up who think the IWW is the wrong organization and I think very few people, if anyone, proposes that the IWW is *the* vehicle. Someone on the Kasama web site recently suggested that we should think about trying to build a sort of eco-system containing multiple organisms in balance. I think that's a good metaphor. The IWW has a positive role to play in moving our class forward. It's not the only organization or the only union that can play such a role. So, if you don't like the IWW, fine, no one's asking you to get involved, and good luck in your other projects.

Rather than start from "the IWW is the wrong union! Is it even a union?!", I suggest that comrades might instead begin to organize at the point of production at their own work or organize other workers to do so at their jobs. From there, a lot can be accomplished in terms of expanding workers class consciousness and in terms of concrete solidarity across different formations. Both of these lay the groundwork for a more sweeping improvement of the left and the advancement of our class. I mean, if there were powerful mass and political organizations of the working class already on the march, then it might be worth sniping at each other about what group people should or shouldn't affiliate with. Right now, we're at such a low level that people should primarily be focused on building what they can where they can with whoever they can, and acquiring needed skills.

I will also point out that the most active organizing sectors in the IWW are among groups of workers who are not targeted by the AFL and CtW unions for organizing, so telling those workers they ought to do something with another union is silly. Union density in the United States is just over 10%, and is less than 10% in the private sector. Thus for the time being 90% of the US working class does not have the opportunity to work within a union workplace or to participate in the AFL and CtW unions as a member.

Oh yeah, and about what presence the IWW has, there are also shops under contract in Portland. Where I live we have two public campaigns - Starbucks and Jimmy Johns - and have nonpublic campaigns in several other workplaces. We also serve as a flying picket type of formation for unionized and nonunionized workplaces. We played a pretty serious role in shaping the tactics of the strike by 3000 employees at the University of Minnesota a few years back, some of whom were also IWW members. The striking locals didn't do enough to train strikers or picket captains, most of the strategy relied on politicians and waving signs at cars. Our group targeted loading docks early in the morning on key delivery days. We were able to turn away a lot of truck delivering important supplies and so tangled management up further. The university administration went nuts in response, and the locals - who initially rejected our involvement and didn't like the tactic - eventually decided to adopt this tactic across the entire strike. Unfortunately by that time people had been on strike too long and were worn out and broke. The strike resolved in an at-best mixed way. In this case, the IWW played a positive leadership role in a way that no one else did, which is ridiculous given our small numbers compared to the locals in question. We're nowhere near good enough or big enough, but we punch way above our weight class, as opposed to many unions which do the opposite.

Finally, and sorry to go on so long, I would suggest that mass work is a better education than propaganda in abstraction from struggle. Mass work followed by propaganda is a different matter. I also will say that the RU's endorsement of industrial unionism is fine and good and I agree, but I think the form - industrial vs craft union or union vs independent workplace group vs workers center - is less important than the experience of and the learning that comes from collective struggle at the point of production.

[chegitz guevara]

If you can say anything publicly, I would like to know a bit about what prompted the formation of the RU.

It depends on the comrade. Some comrades are outraged by a particular officer who continues to act as if the rules do not apply to him. While we can debate whether or not rank and file comrades ought to be able to get away with ignoring the rules, I doubt anyone aside from this particular officer's supporters would agree that we can say the same for officers.

For myself, I am primarily interested in using Revolutionary Unity as a way of reaching out to revolutionaries who are interested in trying an experiment to see if a multiple revolutionary tendencies can co-exist. I see it as a step in trying to create something like the Democratic Socialist Alliance in Australia or the Workers Party in New Zealand or similar unions of different revolutionary tendencies around the world.

Furthermore, my attempts to professionalize the organization have met with little success, so my hope is that Revolutionary Unity can be a tool to make that happen.

[enrici]

How is the SPUSA as a whole? Would it be an organization worth joining?

[thriller]

For myself, I am primarily interested in using Revolutionary Unity as a way of reaching out to revolutionaries who are interested in trying an experiment to see if a multiple revolutionary tendencies can co-exist. I see it as a step in trying to create something like the Democratic Socialist Alliance in Australia or the Workers Party in New Zealand or similar unions of different revolutionary tendencies around the world.



That is exactly what I mean Zeus, MULTI-TENDENCY. I guess cadre ha put a bad taste in my mouth after joining the ISO, so I get your point. However I believe freedom of criticism is exactly what started RUG, because of our disdain for the reformists in the SP-USA. If we truly all adhered to the ideas of democratic centralism, we wouldn't form RUG in the first place, because the majority didn't "vote" for RUG.

As for enrici's question, you should probably read the SP-USA's statement of principles before joining. They can be found at the Socialist Party USA homepage under principles (I'd post the link but RevLeft won't let me :mad: ). I like the organization, it allows for dissenting opinions and multiple viewpoints. we also stay pretty well connected through conference calls, e-mail lists, and conventions. But never join a group without knowing exactly what it's about. I'd also suggest attending a local meeting in your area (if there is a local) to see how we operate.

[chegitz guevara]

How is the SPUSA as a whole? Would it be an organization worth joining?

As a whole, the SPUSA is pretty good. When it comes to straight up votes, revolutionary politics almost always wins. The problem is when it comes to choosing officers, in which case, personality tends to win out over politics, so people who are hostile to whatever was just passed are often the ones in charge of carrying out that politics. Needless to say, that doesn't work out too well.

Where we have locals, we tend to be active and respected by other activists. You should always check, first, though. The Indianapolis local is basically a dual local with the Democratic Socialists of America, a group which considers itself part of the Democratic Party. I never hear about any activity from them.

When picking an organization, you need to consider several things: what you can offer, what politics you favor, and what's around. Of these, I'd say the third is most important. You may agree more with Socialist Action, but if Workers World is the only group in town (just to pick two names completely randomly), then WW would be the better choice. Included with that is the type of activity. I liked the politics of Solidarity in the 90s (they were better and I was more confused), but my local never did a damn thing. Being a member was pointless.

You shouldn't join an organization whose politics you cannot abide, even if they tell you that there is a diversity of opinion in the organization. Very often, that diversity is only barely tolerated and is not allowed to express public differences with the group. The SPUSA is one of the few organizations where that is not true, which is why I remained in the group until it changed around me (with no help from me, I might add).

Lastly, what can you offer a group. If you membership will do more good in one group over another, everything else being equal,you should choose that group. If one group is doing union organizing and the other is simply a "fighting propaganda" group, join the one doing real work.

Maybe the SPUSA is the group for you. Maybe another one is. The most important thing, for me, is, what's the best fit for you. If you join the group that is right for you, you're more likely to stay an active socialist, rather than dropping out of the movement. While I definitely want more revolutionaries to join the SPUSA and help us make it a better organization, for me, the movement comes first.

[chegitz guevara]

looking forward to the letter(s) about splits in purges in a couple months

More like a year.

[charley63]

More like a year.

So, has the RUG been purged or split? :huh:

[chegitz guevara]

There's talk of a split. It hasn't happened yet, but depending on how things go, it's rather probable.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This may be a dumb question but how would the SP feel about a revived US Labor Party project? I have friends who were involved in this in the 90s when some unionists and the left became disillusioned with Clinton.A mass based worker's party, by definition, would challenge the rule of capital.A Labor Party would be a way to rally the working class away from the Dems. It would be "multi-tendency", revolutionary socialists groups would play a role in it, be the core of it, but it would be broader.

I get the impression the SP itself is seeking to become such a formation?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The United States Labor Party has been dormant for a couple of years now.

[Jose Gracchus]

Isn't the U.S. Labor Party a LaRoucheite front?

[charley63]

There's talk of a split. It hasn't happened yet, but depending on how things go, it's rather probable.

Honestly, a split seems like a waste to me. There's already so many fragments of the original SP out there, DSA, the "new" SPA, SDUSA, and of course SPUSA. SPUSA has always seemed to me the best of those remains, so splitting it seems to be the final nail in the coffin of Debsian socialism.

I could be wrong about that. :unsure:

[graymouser]

Isn't the U.S. Labor Party a LaRoucheite front?
The "U.S. Labor Party" was one of the various fronts of the Lyndon LaRouche movement, which has turned out a lot of organizations over the years. But I believe the one Lenina and DNZ are referring to is the Labor Party that was formed in 1996 out of the Labor Party Advocates, which was headed by Tony Mazzocchi. That party has been more or less defunct after Mazzocchi's death in 2002, although it has made a stab or two at running candidates in South Carolina. A lot of the comrades I know were involved in entry work in the LP when it was initially formed.

[chegitz guevara]

Honestly, a split seems like a waste to me. There's already so many fragments of the original SP out there, DSA, the "new" SPA, SDUSA, and of course SPUSA. SPUSA has always seemed to me the best of those remains, so splitting it seems to be the final nail in the coffin of Debsian socialism.

I could be wrong about that. :unsure:

There just doesn't seem to be the material base to carry out a struggle, and I've better things to do than fight hopelessly inside an organization, that even if we did win, would take years of work to turn into something functional.

The convention is in October, so we may stay that long. It depends if RU is willing to make some necessary changes. If I don't see that, I'm not gonna bother. At this point, the SPUSA is a distraction from valuable work I could be doing.

All it has is the name and history, which, admittedly, are valuable, but not necessary.

[The Douche]

There just doesn't seem to be the material base to carry out a struggle, and I've better things to do than fight hopelessly inside an organization, that even if we did win, would take years of work to turn into something functional.

The convention is in October, so we may stay that long. It depends if RU is willing to make some necessary changes. If I don't see that, I'm not gonna bother. At this point, the SPUSA is a distraction from valuable work I could be doing.

All it has is the name and history, which, admittedly, are valuable, but not necessary.

MCQ7VLoY7bQ

;)


But really, it is a shame, hopefully positive things will still be able to come from the experience. Maybe we should start and ex-SPer user group.

[chegitz guevara]

Smart ass ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

First you're saying the party itself has problems, and now you're say RUG has problems???


As a whole, the SPUSA is pretty good. When it comes to straight up votes, revolutionary politics almost always wins. The problem is when it comes to choosing officers, in which case, personality tends to win out over politics, so people who are hostile to whatever was just passed are often the ones in charge of carrying out that politics. Needless to say, that doesn't work out too well.

The working-class left needs more charismatic organizers. That's a plain fact.

[graymouser]

First you're saying the party itself has problems, and now you're say RUG has problems???
When I was in the SPUSA, the party had major problems, and the left wing (then in the Debs Tendency) had significant problems - so I totally understand. I wound up leaving the SP in disgust almost immediately after being elected to the national committee (which means that people who were in the SP 5 years ago should know me). The SP was so organizationally fubar as to be unsalvageable, but the DT was amorphous and disorganized. The two problems were somewhat related but didn't bar one another; in a terrible party the opposition can really be crap as well.

[snerfuplz]

I don't think any of the existing Left parties are salvageable. If only there could be a conference to put together a new party.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think any of the existing Left parties are salvageable. If only there could be a conference to put together a new party.

I agree they are pretty much all problematic, and that in order to be able to really coordinate a struggle against the Empire, we need to reorganize. The brother from Socialist Alternative has an interesting proposal, that was posted in another thread here. On the other hand, many of them have valuable experience and lessons.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Would you mind posting the link to graymouser's proposal? I'd be quite interested in reading what he/she has to say.

[Sam_b]

If only there could be a conference to put together a new party.

Because that hasn't happened a million times before, right?

[chegitz guevara]

Would you mind posting the link to graymouser's proposal? I'd be quite interested in reading what he/she has to say.

graymouer is in Socialist Action (SAc).

The propsoal is from someone who was, or is, with Socialist Alternative (SAlt).

http://kasamaproject.org/2011/05/17/dead-ends-road-maps-building-a-new-socialist-movement/

[stuckinarut]

I am a member of SPUSA, and am interested in your movement. I am moving in the next week, and relocating to Burlington, VT...I believe there is a group already there at the college. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

[stuckinarut]

Organizing independent thinkers = herding cats.

[chegitz guevara]

Will do, Comrade.