Spusa

[RedSunsZenith]

I've recently been considering joining the Socialist Party of my home state of Kansas (mainly because there's no Communist Party). However, after visiting their website, they seem to be just far-left nationalist democrats who call themselves "socialist" because they don't like rich people. I was wondering if there are any members of the SPUSA who could perhaps correct me on this assumption, or otherwise inform me about the party's stance. I get the feeling they may have watered down some of their views in order to seem less subversive, which is why I'm asking.

[Susurrus]

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/18029-2/I+am+Monitoring+this+Thread.jpg

Likewise interested, Floridian here.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am in the SPUSA. While it's not perfect I think it's worth joining. There are radicals in the party and from what I've heard (and seen a bit myself) the stance taken varies from local to local. I think it's the party that stands the best chance with actually connecting with masses of people. Join it and if you don't like the way your local is (or if you don't have one) just shape it how you feel is needed.

That might sound bad to people, I'm not sure. All I know is that my branch in Milwaukee is pretty much non-existant. I think myself and a few comrades of mine that go into the city to hand out literature and talk to people are the only representation of the SPUSA in Milwaukee. So on paper the branch in Milwaukee is reformist and inactive but since me and some fellow comrades are the ones putting out the message it comes off more revolutionary. Hopefully that will draw in the people who favor a more revolutionary socialist view and eventually will have a revolutionary core in Milwaukee.

So really I would say join and make of it as you will (as long as it doesn't oppose what the party stands for) because the SP-USA really needs all the help it can get I think.

[Weezer]

I've recently been considering joining the Socialist Party of my home state of Kansas (mainly because there's no Communist Party). However, after visiting their website, they seem to be just far-left nationalist democrats who call themselves "socialist" because they don't like rich people. I was wondering if there are any members of the SPUSA who could perhaps correct me on this assumption, or otherwise inform me about the party's stance. I get the feeling they may have watered down some of their views in order to seem less subversive, which is why I'm asking.

I know and met SPUSA members - not a nationalist among them.

Democrats? Sadly, social democracy is an excepted tendency within the SPUSA, but all the members I've met are communists, libertarian socialists, and even an anarchist.

Read their Principles and Program. They're not the most radical, but they're the biggest socialist party in the US as far as I know.

[The Douche]

They have a habit of attacking and/or expelling revolutionaries when they attempt to organize a tendency. And despite the party's language in favor of democratic procedure and opposition to democratic centralism (they say its to authoritarian), they actually operate in a very authoritarian and undemocratic manner.

I was in the SP years ago, in a revolutionary, libertarian socialist tendency, we were shut down and a number of people were expelled, all because the secretary of the party at the time didn't like our politics/tendency.

[BostonCharlie]

I was never actually a member, but hung out with the local (Boston) members and attended a few of their meetings several years back when I was attending antiwar actions. Nice energetic bunch of young folks, some of them kind of radical, but unfortunately a lot of that energy was eaten up in internal party matters - some of the type you'd expect in any organization, some of which seemed pretty isometric to me.

Like the man said, it depends on the local. I hear that the right-reformers are strongest in the NYC branch, which dominates the party organizationally.

[graymouser]

I have been a member of the Socialist Party USA. I was the leader of a tendency in the SP and a member of its National Committee for a brief period. It was the first left-wing organization I ever joined.

On the whole, I think there are better places for revolutionaries to be than the Socialist Party USA. It's an extremely federalist party, and its structure is based on the old Socialist Party of America, where each state had its own small Socialist Party. The result is incoherence: the party is uneven across different areas, with some being quite active and others primarily made up of paper members.

The membership of the Socialist Party is, by and large, a paper tiger. They sign up a lot of people on the Internet but do not seriously consolidate themselves into a meaningful group. I was actually given a list of party members to try and organize a meeting once, and the ones who actually answered the phone or emails were not interested in the least. Many people pay $25 a year or whatever the minimum is nowadays and that's the extent of their political involvement.

Historically, the SP is a social democratic party. Some revolutionaries have tried to change that but the party literature is awful and a new member of the SPUSA will not get the kind of political education they would by joining a real revolutionary organization. It attracts a very eclectic range, with the result being a sort of middling "yeah, we're socialists" sort of politics. The party's traditional membership base has been retiring or dying off, and its replacement is a combination of confused youth and people who used to identify as revolutionaries, such as the major NYC leader who is an ex-member of Socialist Alternative (the CWI in the US).

Ten years ago, there was a reason to go into the SP - there were many more young people signing up who could've been reached & worked with, and eventually moved on to a revolutionary organization. But that ship has more or less sailed and the SP is much more effort than it's worth. That could change but until it does, you're better off finding a revolutionary organization to join.

[Q]

(mainly because there's no Communist Party).

We should really have a FAQ entry somewhere along the lines of...


Should I join the CPUSA?

No. They're the leftwing excuse of the Democratic Party. They are not communist in any sense of the word (well, besides the name). Do not waste your time.

[theblackmask]

Many people pay $25 a year or whatever the minimum is nowadays and that's the extent of their political involvement.

Does anyone know what exactly those collective $25/year payments get spent on?

[Leftsolidarity]

Does anyone know what exactly those collective $25/year payments get spent on?

There is A LOT of debate on that stuff. They are low on money because the rates are really low. (15/year for new members)

Chegitz Guevara could tell you far more than I about that subject.

[LegendZ]

Where I live we don't even have state leaders. Be lucky you have something with the occasional socialist/communist in it.

[graymouser]

Does anyone know what exactly those collective $25/year payments get spent on?
When I was in the party, there was a small office in New York, the national secretary was on staff, and the magazine was published every other month - I think those took up the majority of the dues. Political organizations can rack up expenses pretty quickly. I think most of the SPUSA congressional and presidential candidates do a lot of their work out of pocket.

There's nothing wrong with an organization taking in money, and $25 a month is really too little for a serious group to have full-time organizers, run a publication and so on.

[Geiseric]

I actually thought of joining in attempt to radicallize the california branch, but for now i guess i'll stick with S.O.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there are locals in Georgia or Louisiana ...

I would have loved to help radicalize some folks.

Strange. I met so many fellow Anarchists and Libertarian Socialists in Lafayette, Louisiana ....

[Leftsolidarity]

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there are locals in Georgia or Louisiana ...

I would have loved to help radicalize some folks.

Strange. I met so many fellow Anarchists and Libertarian Socialists in Lafayette, Louisiana ....

If you get a few like-minded people (I think it is 7) you can start your own local. My friends in Rockford Illinois have been working on doing the same thing. A local won't get formed until someone trys, looks like it's up to you.

[bietan jarrai]

I'd go to a meeting or something, start your own local if there isn't one. I don't really know but it seems to me that like many socialist parties reformism lead to its ruin - doesn't stop you from trying to change that. Seems to me it's a better choice than starting your own organization. If you can't find an alternative, go for it. It's better than struggling by yourself :)

[DaringMehring]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7gS25pfTDg

(Communist ditty about the Socialists who purged them from the Cloakmakers' union, then turned around and did deals with the bosses)

Says it all really...

[Leftsolidarity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7gS25pfTDg

(Communist ditty about the Socialists who purged them from the Cloakmakers' union, then turned around and did deals with the bosses)

Says it all really...

What are you talking about?

[Delenda Carthago]

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/greek-communists-criticize-sam-webbs-party-of-socialism-for-the-21st-century-1132-2.html

[Leftsolidarity]

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/greek-communists-criticize-sam-webbs-party-of-socialism-for-the-21st-century-1132-2.html

Wrong party bud. We're talking about the Socialist Party USA not the Communist Party USA.

[DaringMehring]

What are you talking about?

That song is a diss on the SP which was the forerunner of the SPUSA which is what this thread is about.

[Tablo]

There is talk of organizing the Socialist Party in Alabama. I'm considering joining just to check it out and network with other Socialists in my state. From what I can tell, most people showing interest in the party in my state are revolutionary socialists, despite the fact the person organizing it is a reformist.

Edit: By join I mean visit a couple meetings, not actually join the Party.

[DaringMehring]

Sorry I didn't have much time and my post was not clear. The song also contained some reference (to historical SP members like Hillquit etc.) that is not appropriate for a "learning" forum.

The point I was trying to make is this:

The Socialist Party was once radical, but around 1912-1919 it decisively fell into the hands of reformist, election oriented, fake socialists.

From that point on it was a combination of increasingly irrelevant and reactionary class conciliation. The song goes to that point. The Socialists executed a purge on the Communists in the garment unions and then turned around and started selling out the workers.

The main problem was the organizational model of the Party, which sucked.

The best article to read on the subject is Cannon's 1956 article on Debs, particularly the later sections: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1956/debs.htm

Now it is irrelevant, class conciliationist, and still with its sucky model. You can see revlefters like Chegitz ***** about how the flabby reformists undemocratically dominate the Party machine pretty regularly.

You could join just to meet people, nothing wrong with that. Getting connected is great and gives people new strength.

BUT ---

1) expect to be traumatized by their politics
2) whatever you do, don't let it burn you out on the idea of socialism... they've done that to way too many people down through the years

hope that helps!

[genstrike]

I've recently been considering joining the Socialist Party of my home state of Kansas (mainly because there's no Communist Party). However, after visiting their website, they seem to be just far-left nationalist democrats who call themselves "socialist" because they don't like rich people. I was wondering if there are any members of the SPUSA who could perhaps correct me on this assumption, or otherwise inform me about the party's stance. I get the feeling they may have watered down some of their views in order to seem less subversive, which is why I'm asking.

I hate to break it to you, but all your beefs with the SPUSA (righteous though they may be) apply pretty much equally to the CPUSA.

[DaringMehring]

I hate to break it to you, but all your beefs with the SPUSA (righteous though they may be) apply pretty much equally to the CPUSA.

Yeah the two are basically the same right now. Hollow organizational shells that orient to reform and are impotent. Historical relics.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think it's important for them to become functional again though. Without a party for leftists to turn too we get little tiny do-nothing fractions everywhere.

[DaringMehring]

I think it's important for them to become functional again though. Without a party for leftists to turn too we get little tiny do-nothing fractions everywhere.

We need a new Party, not old garbage connected to legacies of betrayal.

[The Douche]

I think it's important for them to become functional again though. Without a party for leftists to turn too we get little tiny do-nothing fractions everywhere.

The problem is, neither will ever become revolutionary parties again.

We have three posters on here, all of whom are revolutionaries, all of whom have been in the SP, and all of whom will agree that its not worth it to be there as a revolutionary.

I am one, I was on the steering comittee of a libertarian socialist/anarchist tendency.
Chegitz Guevara is one, he was recently in the Revolutionary Unity Group (which was a broad revolutionary tendency), on the steering committee.
Graymouser was on the national committee and is a trot.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I've recently been considering joining the Socialist Party of my home state of Kansas (mainly because there's no Communist Party).
Where are you in Kansas? Because the Kansas City IWW is growing fast and they're militant. They also have members in Lawrence, Topeka, etc. that you could get in contact with. This is a public forum, so I can't leak information, but if you want to know more, there is a rather large organizing drive at at certain workplaces in a certain city. I think they're going public soon, they're strong in numbers from how it sounds and the situation is getting tense.

Just saying, there's some militant stuff going on in your state.

[Susurrus]

Does anyone have any recommendations for alternative groups?

[Leftsolidarity]

Does anyone have any recommendations for alternative groups?

What kind of group would you be looking for?

[Susurrus]

What kind of group would you be looking for?

Something anti-authoritarian, non-reformist, and anarchist if possible. Basically like a revolutionary version of SPUSA

[Leftsolidarity]

something anti-authoritarian, non-reformist, and anarchist if possible. Basically like a revolutionary version of spusa

iww

[Susurrus]

iww

I know, but I don't think they even exist in my state.

[Leftsolidarity]

I know, but I don't think they even exist in my state.

Then call them. Other than that you're shit outta luck haha
That's why I went with the SPUSA.

[The Douche]

Lol at thinking the SPUSA and IWW are the only anti-authoritarian revolutionary groups in the US.


You can start a group with your friends and do whatever you want, if there is an organization who's politics you agree with then you can stay in touch with them.

If you like NEFAC, send them an email, if you like WSA talk to them, if you think IEF is A-number 1 then hit them up.

Just do what you're gonna do, and stay in touch with other people who you agree with, fuck, its not rocket science, fellas.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lol at thinking the SPUSA and IWW are the only anti-authoritarian revolutionary groups in the US.


You can start a group with your friends and do whatever you want, if there is an organization who's politics you agree with then you can stay in touch with them.

If you like NEFAC, send them an email, if you like WSA talk to them, if you think IEF is A-number 1 then hit them up.

Just do what you're gonna do, and stay in touch with other people who you agree with, fuck, its not rocket science, fellas.

I was also thinking of the "anarchist" he included at the end. I can't think of many other groups who are alright with anarchists in them. Maybe I just never really looked for them though.

[The Douche]

Not to mention the SP is not a revoluionary organization, despite how many revolutionaries there may or may not be in it at a given time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You can see revlefters like Chegitz ***** about how the flabby reformists undemocratically dominate the Party machine pretty regularly.

For all your recent ad hominems about commitment to activism, answer this question: why is it that more radical resolutions are passed, yet less radical activists are elected to "undemocratically dominate the Party machine"?

Do the radical activists lack charisma?
Do the radical activists think they have other things to do?

Those are just two questions to consider.

[Skammunist]

Can you guys tell me the main differences between the Socialist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation? Which one would you join?

[The Douche]

Can you guys tell me the main differences between the Socialist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation? Which one would you join?

The SP is a democratic socialist organization with revolutionaries in it, it opposes democratic centralism, opposes "official Communism", and bases its work around elections/parliamentarianism. The PSL is a Marxist-Leninist party, which practices democratic centralism, and was descended from the Trotskyist left, but is now somewhere between "stalinism" and trotskyism. It runs candidates but does not view elections as a realistic strategy.


I wouldn't join either.

[Leftsolidarity]

The SP is a democratic socialist organization with revolutionaries in it, it opposes democratic centralism, opposes "official Communism", and bases its work around elections/parliamentarianism. The PSL is a Marxist-Leninist party, which practices democratic centralism, and was descended from the Trotskyist left, but is now somewhere between "stalinism" and trotskyism. It runs candidates but does not view elections as a realistic strategy.


I wouldn't join either.

What he said only without the not joining either part. It's best to get involved instead of sit on the sidelines complaining that no one is doing it right. Being in the SP I'd love if you would join us but I think either choice is better than nothing.

[The Douche]

What he said only without the not joining either part. It's best to get involved instead of sit on the sidelines complaining that no one is doing it right. Being in the SP I'd love if you would join us but I think either choice is better than nothing.

Let it be clear that I'm not suggesting "doing nothing". I wouldn't join either because I a) don't agree with the politics of either organization and b) have already been kicked out of the SP.

[DaringMehring]

For all your recent ad hominems about commitment to activism, answer this question: why is it that more radical resolutions are passed, yet less radical activists are elected to "undemocratically dominate the Party machine"?

Do the radical activists lack charisma?
Do the radical activists think they have other things to do?

Those are just two questions to consider.

Once again I have to question, have you ever actually worked in an organization of this type? Cause the answer to this question is obvious if you have. It is easy for those in charge of the apparatus to manipulate the internal democracy. I speak not from experience in the SPUSA but from observing several other groups. First of all, they gerrymander the clubs or branches so that delegates loyal to them are over represented. They curtail debate and discussion under the guise of preventing factionalism. At the actual meetings, the whole proceedings are prepared and regimented so that the members have minimal opportunity to conceive or push alternatives to the pre-prepared slate of the incumbents. Members are not given access to basic information required for democracy, such as, the number of members in the group or in each of the branches, so they have no way to call out the manipulations of the leaders.

Similar mechanisms, though not cloaked in false Leninism, apply in unions, in that the apparatus (the staff) is usually able to control the nominal members' democracy. UAW, Teamsters, etc. If you follow workers struggles, you'll see the lengths some union members have had to go to, to organize against their own shameful union apparatuses. In one case the UAW was almost certainly simply falsifying ballot results, and in order to stop them the workers at the plant literally filmed every ballot against concessions being filled out and dropped in the mail.

But judging from your posts you're more likely to side with the bureaucrats anyway.

[The Douche]

In my case, the secretary simply came into the email list, told us that the "supporters" in the tendency, that is, people who worked with/had full say in the tendency but were not party members (an attempt to bring anarchists in, like myself) "no longer had voting privileges" in the tendency. I was the first to respond and pointed out that I was on the steering committee and that removing my voting privileges essentially destroyed an entire chapter of the tendency.

He told me that I "wasn't eligible" for the steering committee.

More steering committee members came in and said that soon they would be letting their party memberships lapse, and so would become "supporters" soon.

He then sent out an email declaring that the tendency was disbanded and that "anybody interested in libertarian socialism should join (x) tendency".


Keep in mind, he had/has no authority to do things like that. His justification was that we were, and this is a direct quote, "attempting a reverse trotskyist, entryist maneuver". We were accused of somehow "using the SP" to build up our own organization. Which was absurd, we were always clear that we were affiliated with the SP, and our organization lead to an SP presence in places of importance where previously the SP did not exist.


I don't want to speak for Chegitz, but I believe that the RUG had articles/advertisements which they provided/paid for to be printed in the SP's magazine, outright rejected or excluded.



So in short, how does it happen? It just does, and there is no real way to take up your grievances. The same as when the old SPA practiced its anti-democratic maneuvers to kick out the revolutionaries in the 20s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Once again I have to question, have you ever actually worked in an organization of this type? Cause the answer to this question is obvious if you have. It is easy for those in charge of the apparatus to manipulate the internal democracy. I speak not from experience in the SPUSA but from observing several other groups. First of all, they gerrymander the clubs or branches so that delegates loyal to them are over represented. They curtail debate and discussion under the guise of preventing factionalism. At the actual meetings, the whole proceedings are prepared and regimented so that the members have minimal opportunity to conceive or push alternatives to the pre-prepared slate of the incumbents. Members are not given access to basic information required for democracy, such as, the number of members in the group or in each of the branches, so they have no way to call out the manipulations of the leaders.

Similar mechanisms, though not cloaked in false Leninism

You yourself just admitted that further-left organizations are prone to doing these kinds of things (leaving demarchic solutions on the side for a moment).


In one case the UAW was almost certainly simply falsifying ballot results, and in order to stop them the workers at the plant literally filmed every ballot against concessions being filled out and dropped in the mail.

What was the case about? I'd like to know the motives behind the UAW falsifying ballot results.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What was the case about? I'd like to know the motives behind the UAW falsifying ballot results.

Keep the class collaborationist labor bureaucrats in power. Force the locals to accept concessions. This is very common with the UAW. A small caste of bureaucrats is sitting on a huge pension fund.

[Binh]

PSL is pro-Qaddafi, anti-revolution in Libya. They split from Workers' World Party, a Stalinist outfit. SPUSA I know nothing about except what I read on their website.

[Who?]

PSL is pro-Qaddafi, anti-revolution in Libya. They split from Workers' World Party, a Stalinist outfit. SPUSA I know nothing about except what I read on their website.

the wwp is stalinist now? that's news to me.

edit: i personally think that if the spusa fixes their structural problems and develops a decent programme that they would become by far the best option for any leftists in the us

[Os Cangaceiros]

The WWP comes across to me as a "tankie" organization, but I guess not Stalinist (I don't think they make a big deal out of "revisionism").

[Leftsolidarity]

The WWP used to be a huge Trotskyist party. Don't start spreading stuff about parties you don't know about. Also, the PSL (the WWP takes the same stance so idk why you single the PSL out) aren't exactly "pro-Qaddafi" but rather anti-imperialist. There's a difference.

[Who?]

The WWP comes across to me as a "tankie" organization, but I guess not Stalinist (I don't think they make a big deal out of "revisionism").

they come off as more consistently anti-imperialist than anything else.

[graymouser]

The Workers World Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, subscribe to the theory of Global Class War put forward by Sam Marcy. In a nutshell it stated during the Cold War, that all of the workers states/socialist countries formed one class camp, and all of the imperialist countries formed a second, and class war had taken on the form of a global conflict between states. The imperative was that the socialist camp would win. This meant that WWP's position was that the USSR and China should cooperate politically against the US.

After the Cold War ended, Marcy's ideas shifted toward an anti-imperialist camp, whose members are even worse defined than the socialist camp's had been. This has colored the politics of WWP and PSL ever since. They weren't strictly Trotskyist, although their roots were in the Socialist Workers Party; the WWP was very pro-Mao and then pro-Castro and Trotsky was allowed to drop to the wayside. Very rarely does either party actually mention him.

[Leftsolidarity]

The Workers World Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, subscribe to the theory of Global Class War put forward by Sam Marcy. In a nutshell it stated during the Cold War, that all of the workers states/socialist countries formed one class camp, and all of the imperialist countries formed a second, and class war had taken on the form of a global conflict between states. The imperative was that the socialist camp would win. This meant that WWP's position was that the USSR and China should cooperate politically against the US.

After the Cold War ended, Marcy's ideas shifted toward an anti-imperialist camp, whose members are even worse defined than the socialist camp's had been. This has colored the politics of WWP and PSL ever since. They weren't strictly Trotskyist, although their roots were in the Socialist Workers Party; the WWP was very pro-Mao and then pro-Castro and Trotsky was allowed to drop to the wayside. Very rarely does either party actually mention him.

That's why I said "used to". All the WWP and PSL members I know are actually very critical of Trotsky.

[graymouser]

That's why I said "used to". All the WWP and PSL members I know are actually very critical of Trotsky.
But it's simply not true - Global Class War theory was already developed fully by the time Marcy and the Buffalo branch left the SWP in 1958/59. The original document was written in 1950 and by the time they actually left there was a boatload of differences separating them from Trotskyism. There was no period after they exited the SWP that WWP was actually "Trotskyist" in any more than a genealogical sense.

Locally WWP cadre have told me that they're not Stalinists. But that's the reputation that they get - they're sort of like a duck billed platypus of the left, hard to classify as one animal or the other.

[eyeheartlenin]

Free advice: Instead of joining the Socialist Party (SP), you would be better off contacting groups that are really leftist, that actually try to do something.

A decade ago, the SP, when I was in it, was a zoo. In addition to a few healthy elements, there were people who were against running socialist candidates in elections (one of the few things the SP did to publicize its existence) because they were for the Democrats.

There were also calls for the SP to liquidate itself into the Green Party, in order to back the anti-China, anti-Mexico, millionaire Ralph Nader. Though it is seldom mentioned, when employees of Nader's Multinational Monitor magazine organized a union some years before, Nader had them fired. And some people in the SP wanted Nader as US President!

Anything leftist that people in the SP wanted to do, was opposed in 2000 by a right-wing state SP organization in North Carolina.

In its Year 2000 presidential campaign, the SP was so inept that it was unable to organize itself to send people to Tennessee, where it could have gotten its presidential candidate on the ballot, by merely getting 25 signatures on a petition. And when a state official in North Carolina decided that the SP had gotten "too many" votes in that state, the SP did absolutely nothing to fight for those votes.

The Year 2000 SP presidential candidate, McReynolds, is famous for his public support for politicians in NY who are "radical Democrats," an oxymoron if ever there was one.

It is fair to say that at that time, at least, there were quite a number of people in the SP who were not convinced that the SP should have an independent existence at all. I would be willing to bet the SP is still just a waste of time for people who are leftists.

[Leftsolidarity]

Free advice: Instead of joining the Socialist Party (SP), you would be better off contacting groups that are really leftist, that actually try to do something.

A decade ago, the SP, when I was in it, was a zoo. In addition to a few healthy elements, there were people who were against running socialist candidates in elections (one of the few things the SP did to publicize its existence) because they were for the Democrats.

There were also calls for the SP to liquidate itself into the Green Party, in order to back the anti-China, anti-Mexico, millionaire Ralph Nader. Though it is seldom mentioned, when employees of Nader's Multinational Monitor magazine organized a union some years before, Nader had them fired. And some people in the SP wanted Nader as US President!

Anything leftist that people in the SP wanted to do, was opposed in 2000 by a right-wing state SP organization in North Carolina.

In its Year 2000 presidential campaign, the SP was so inept that it was unable to organize itself to send people to Tennessee, where it could have gotten its presidential candidate on the ballot, by merely getting 25 signatures on a petition. And when a state official in North Carolina decided that the SP had gotten "too many" votes in that state, the SP did absolutely nothing to fight for those votes.

The Year 2000 SP presidential candidate, McReynolds, is famous for his public support for politicians in NY who are "radical Democrats," an oxymoron if ever there was one.

It is fair to say that at that time, at least, there were quite a number of people in the SP who were not convinced that the SP should have an independent existence at all. I would be willing to bet the SP is still just a waste of time for people who are leftists.

Free advice: The party is what you make of it.

[graymouser]

Free advice: The party is what you make of it.
Comrade, I don't mean to come off as unkind or hostile to you, but this is precisely wrong.

The Socialist Party is a left social democratic party, with some rhetoric that gets revolutionaries to join it and do the work of building the party, but fundamentally its program is not that of a revolutionary socialist party, and its methods and organizations are straight from the social democracy. Inasmuch as there are currently self-perceived revolutionaries in the SP, and there are, the party is structured in such a way as to make it practically impossible for them to make it a consistent vehicle of revolutionary ideas and action.

People have played that game for years. You don't get much return on investment; once you've beaten one crowd of social democrats another crops up. It's bound to happen when you accept memberships over the internet. The effort you spend trying to win the SP to a revolutionary line is effort that could be spent building a genuinely revolutionary group. I came to that conclusion five years ago.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Very rarely does either party actually mention him. When Marcy and co. first split from the SWP, they placed pictures of Lenin and Trotsky prominently on their masthead.

http://www.mltranslations.org/us/MLO/TrotLen.jpg

At the time they claimed to "...stand 100% with all the principled positions of Leon Trotsky, the most revolutionary communist since Lenin."

They removed the image soon after. And the position that the Soviet Bloc, China, et al. were "deformed workers' states." They became full on cheerleaders for their new found "socialist motherlands," supporting things like Mao's Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution.

Incidentally, the roots of Marcy's tendency lay in their argument that the SWP should have thrown it's support behind bourgeois politician Henry Wallace's "Progressive Party" campaign instead of running their own candidates.

The split came after they argued for support of Mao and the USSR's squashing of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

You can follow this "unbroken thread" all the way to the present. These days the WWP promotes bourgeois politicians like Democrats David Dinkins, Jesse Jackson and Charles Barron and Green Cynthia McKinney... and supports great "anti-imperialists" like Slobodan Milosevic.

The PSL is basically a mirror image of the group it split from. To this day neither has made the reasons public, though from all accounts it was based more on tactics and personalities than anything else.