Sp-usa

[Victus Mortuum]

So why isn't the SP-USA calling for the abolition of the state in its platform (not even implicitly, let alone explicitly)? I mean, I know there isn't significant support for them right now, but their platform sounds more like social-democracy/progressivism than socialism. Where's the call for the smashing of the bourgeois state (abolition of standing army and creation of a people's militia and work toward integration of professional police with the citizenry, de-bureaucratization of executive and legislative branch, 'community constitution' to replace the 'state constitution', etc.)?

[Sensible Socialist]

So why isn't the SP-USA calling for the abolition of the state in its platform (not even implicitly, let alone explicitly)? I mean, I know there isn't significant support for them right now, but their platform sounds more like social-democracy/progressivism than socialism.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

[Victus Mortuum]

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

Right, I understand. It's just that I am aware of several Sp-usa members or supporters on revleft and was looking for an explanation as to why they support it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the answer they will give you is this:

the SP-USA's leadership is infested with social democrats and militant left-liberals.

The SP-USA has an interesting thing about it though. it is a multi-tendency party. in it there can be anything from marxist-leninists to anarchists to left communists to maoists and yes, liberals and social democrats. there is a revolutionary portion of the party.

Chegitz can fill you in on that though.

[graymouser]

Right, I understand. It's just that I am aware of several Sp-usa members or supporters on revleft and was looking for an explanation as to why they support it.
Since about 2000 or so, there has been a slow trickle of two types of people into the Socialist Party. One is young people who are new to politics, identify themselves as "some kind of socialist," and join the SPUSA. The other is somewhat older, more experienced activists who consider themselves revolutionaries and believe in working in a non-sectarian way with other socialists. Both groups have filtered through the SP over the years, with people coming and going, and various attempts to create revolutionary socialist tendencies. I was in the former category, and hooked up with one of those attempts, the Debs Tendency, back in its day. None of these efforts have had great results.

Despite the presence of some revolutionaries, the SPUSA is a social democratic party. There is some boilerplate about "democratic revolutions" in its statement of principles, but this referred to states that are not bourgeois democratic: the Stalinist states and the various dictatorships around the world. The same boilerplate was adopted by the other two groups to emerge from the wreckage of the Socialist Party of America, including the right-wing Social Democrats, USA. As you correctly point out, the program is pure social democracy from start to end.

The irony is that most active members of the SP, with a few exceptions like Wharton who is the male national co-chair, are more or less on the left wing of the party. And Pason who is the National Secretary plays a good game of placating all sides. But when it comes down to convention time the federated structure (there are state party organizations) and the social democratic majority always come through, and in practice you have a party that puts forward embarrassingly bad candidates like the adventurer Brian Moore (2008 presidential candidate) and the right-wing social democrat Walt Brown (2004 presidential candidate).

[Queercommie Girl]

Since about 2000 or so, there has been a slow trickle of two types of people into the Socialist Party. One is young people who are new to politics, identify themselves as "some kind of socialist," and join the SPUSA. The other is somewhat older, more experienced activists who consider themselves revolutionaries and believe in working in a non-sectarian way with other socialists. Both groups have filtered through the SP over the years, with people coming and going, and various attempts to create revolutionary socialist tendencies. I was in the former category, and hooked up with one of those attempts, the Debs Tendency, back in its day. None of these efforts have had great results.

Despite the presence of some revolutionaries, the SPUSA is a social democratic party. There is some boilerplate about "democratic revolutions" in its statement of principles, but this referred to states that are not bourgeois democratic: the Stalinist states and the various dictatorships around the world. The same boilerplate was adopted by the other two groups to emerge from the wreckage of the Socialist Party of America, including the right-wing Social Democrats, USA. As you correctly point out, the program is pure social democracy from start to end.

The irony is that most active members of the SP, with a few exceptions like Wharton who is the male national co-chair, are more or less on the left wing of the party. And Pason who is the National Secretary plays a good game of placating all sides. But when it comes down to convention time the federated structure (there are state party organizations) and the social democratic majority always come through, and in practice you have a party that puts forward embarrassingly bad candidates like the adventurer Brian Moore (2008 presidential candidate) and the right-wing social democrat Walt Brown (2004 presidential candidate).

There aren't really any Stalinist states left.

Of the five remaining Leninist states, only Cuba and North Korea are still largely Stalinist states. Cuba, I would argue, still possesses some genuine socialist features. North Korea still has a planned economy by and large but the political superstructure is heavily distorted.

The other three: PRC, Vietnam and Laos may still be political dictatorships, (and in the technical sense may still be considered as "extremely deformed worker's states" if one is to be pedantic about it) but are clearly not Stalinist states in any concrete sense.

[graymouser]

There aren't really any Stalinist states left.

Of the five remaining Leninist states, only Cuba and North Korea are still largely Stalinist states. Cuba, I would argue, still possesses some genuine socialist features. North Korea still has a planned economy by and large but the political superstructure is heavily distorted.

The other three: PRC, Vietnam and Laos may still be political dictatorships, (and in the technical sense may still be considered as "extremely deformed worker's states" if one is to be pedantic about it) but are clearly not Stalinist states in any concrete sense.
I meant what I said. The boilerplate was written in 1973, and referred primarily to what were then the main Stalinist states.

I would agree with you on Cuba, but the SPUSA's official views would not.

[Queercommie Girl]

I would agree with you on Cuba, but the SPUSA's official views would not.


Well, personally I think on Cuba it's important to be dialectical. Obviously it's a lot better than the other 4 Leninist states, particularly China, and it's good to recognise this. But we shouldn't overstate this and label Cuba as some kind of "ideal socialist society", because it's not.

[jinx92]

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society...where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would'nt this make the SPUSA sound like reformists, as in reform communism? And I'm in the SPUSA and I'm a believer in revolutionary socialism.

[graymouser]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this make them sound like reformists, as in reform communism?
Not reform communism so much as reformist social democracy. The SPUSA was the left wing of the split in the Socialist Party / Social Democratic Federation, but the main disagreement was whether to orient to the right wing of the Democrats (Social Democrats, USA), try to pull the Democrats leftward (Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, now Democratic Socialists of America) and independent political action (SPUSA).

The left wing of the party consists mainly of people who consider themselves to be revolutionary socialists, and even some anarchists, but it's a pretty eclectic group and has not been able to move the bulk of the party beyond its traditional passivity. The right wing is able to dominate conventions despite having fewer of the real hard-core activists, because the bulk of the membership aren't really revolutionaries.

[Queercommie Girl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would'nt this make the SPUSA sound like reformists, as in reform communism? And I'm in the SPUSA and I'm a believer in revolutionary socialism.

Is there no mention of the nationalisation of the key sectors of the economy?

[jinx92]

The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.

1. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.

6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.

7. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.

8. We call for compensation to communities-- and compensation, re-training, and other support service for workers-- affected by plant and military base closings as stop-gap measures until we reach our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy.

9. We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of capitalist oppression throughout the world.

10. We demand cancellation of Third World debt.

11. We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits.

12. We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.

13. We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development.

14. We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.

15. We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.



Just putting this hear.

[jinx92]

Not reform communism so much as reformist social democracy.

How are you defining social democracy and what do you mean by reformist social democracy?

[graymouser]

How are you defining social democracy and what do you mean by reformist social democracy?
By social democracy, I mean primarily the politics of the post-1914 Second, or Socialist, International: socialism as an eventual goal to be reached (if it is reached at all) through reforms to the capitalist system. Revolutionary social democracy was shattered in 1914; before then, the social democratic movement was broad and encompassed both revolutionary socialists and reformists. Afterward it was primarily the reformists, although revolutionary-minded workers sometimes stumble into it. This is why Trotsky developed what is called "entryism" in the '30s: to win over workers, subjectively revolutionary, who joined the social democratic parties because they hated capitalism but had no love for Stalin.

[chegitz guevara]

Just putting this hear.

No one in the Party is required to support the platform. In fact, I suspect many people haven't even read it.

You are only required to "subscribe" to the Statement of Principles, whatever the fuck that means, and abide by the Constitution and by-laws of the organization ... but in practice, not even that.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, damn man i dont undertand, i mean don't understand at all, why it is so hard for progressive liberal social-democrats (Centrists) to become leftists, socialists-marxists. Because i had this person in the friends list of my facebook. And i posted some leftist quotes in the wall of this progressive liberal from this site like quotes by Deleon, Durruti, Lenin, Fidel Castro and others. And he deleted me from her friends list.

She used to post articles from Commondreams, The Nation Magazine, Truthdig, Salon.com, counterpunch.org, alternet.org and other progressive liberal alternative news websites which have good anti-US Imperialism articles, but at the same time in some of those alternative progressive news sites, they might ban you if you post marxist articles.

I was a member of dissidentvoice.org and commondreams.org and they banned by whole IP just for posting articles from marxists.org

I mean what the hell is happening with progressive liberals that they hate marxism, Karl Marx, Lenin and marxist-socialist ideology so much.

Maybe they are left-gatekeepers funded by George Soros, like Amy Goodman who is funded by The Ford Foundation. There has be an explanation of why there are so many left-gatekeepers, fake-leftists in America

.

.



So why isn't the SP-USA calling for the abolition of the state in its platform (not even implicitly, let alone explicitly)? I mean, I know there isn't significant support for them right now, but their platform sounds more like social-democracy/progressivism than socialism. Where's the call for the smashing of the bourgeois state (abolition of standing army and creation of a people's militia and work toward integration of professional police with the citizenry, de-bureaucratization of executive and legislative branch, 'community constitution' to replace the 'state constitution', etc.)?

[Victus Mortuum]

And i posted some leftist quotes in the wall of this progressive liberal from this site like quotes by Deleon, Durruti, Lenin, Fidel Castro and others. And he deleted me from her friends list.

Perhaps you should try to be less intrusive. People don't like it when others blow up their facebook walls with quotes and shit. Honestly, perhaps try to convince people of the ideals of socialism without coming out all "OMG I'M A SUPPORTER OF MARX, CASTRO, LENIN!!!!" Cause you have to understand that if you quote those kinds of people or talk about 'communism' with certain moderates they will avoid you because they don't want to be alienated by their peers for being associated with such concepts. Honestly, you have to understand that there is a taboo about all terms socialism with certain people.

Ideas are what are important at this point, not names or terms. And also strategy - learn not to break social norm too much at once.

That's my thoughts at least.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hello, damn man i dont undertand, i mean don't understand at all, why it is so hard for progressive liberal social-democrats (Centrists) to become leftists, socialists-marxists. Because i had this person in the friends list of my facebook. And i posted some leftist quotes in the wall of this progressive liberal from this site like quotes by Deleon, Durruti, Lenin, Fidel Castro and others. And he deleted me from her friends list.

She used to post articles from Commondreams, The Nation Magazine, Truthdig, Salon.com, counterpunch.org, alternet.org and other progressive liberal alternative news websites which have good anti-US Imperialism articles, but at the same time in some of those alternative progressive news sites, they might ban you if you post marxist articles.

I was a member of dissidentvoice.org and commondreams.org and they banned by whole IP just for posting articles from marxists.org

I mean what the hell is happening with progressive liberals that they hate marxism, Karl Marx, Lenin and marxist-socialist ideology so much.

Maybe they are left-gatekeepers funded by George Soros, like Amy Goodman who is funded by The Ford Foundation. There has be an explanation of why there are so many left-gatekeepers, fake-leftists in America

.

.

By the British definition, social democrats aren't liberals. (That's why in Britain there is a Labour Party and there is a Liberal Democratic Party and they are not the same at all) Genuine social democrats of the Old Labour type would explicitly argue for an overall planned economy, and many would even see the Stalinist states as somewhat socialist despite the serious distortions and lack of basic democratic rights there.

Historically social democracy originated from the Marxist tradition too, (The Second International) but different from Leninism.

What you have to understand is that part of the reason is that the image of real Marxism-Leninism has been tainted by the legacy of Stalinism.

And it's not just the "liberals" who are anti-Stalin. I was debating with a Stalinist here on RevLeft earlier, who opposed the right to strike in a socialist society. This position is frankly even worse than the position of social democrats, who would strongly support the right to strike and the formation of independent trade unions.

So basically in a Stalinist system workers (not "liberals") would have less basic rights and would have to slave harder for their managers than they would under social democracy. So why the fuck would anyone still support "communism" if they think it just means Stalinism?

Abstract slogans by themselves mean nothing. As a worker, I support socialism because I want to live in a society where there is guaranteed employment for all and the workload is less with more pay so that I can have more time and money to do other things. As a queer person who is ethnic Chinese, I want to live in a society where there is no racism, sexism and queerphobia. If "communism" cannot satisfy my demands here, then fuck "communism". If "communism" means I'd have to work even harder than I do now with less pay, and where the problems of discrimination are even greater, then I would be an utter fool to support "communism".

People are all "selfish". Communist collectivism isn't about "pure selflessness" but the "free association of free producers" (as Marx said), so that everyone's "selfish demands" can be met in a collective manner. If you can't show that you can satisfy the basic economic and social demands of the masses, then no-one will listen to you. Slogans mean nothing.

[Queercommie Girl]

Talking about "fake-leftists", objectively many hardline Stalinists here on RevLeft are even more fake than social democrats or even some liberal leftists!