Socialist Party USA

[marxstudent]

http://sp-usa.org/about/principles.html

"Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers."

I thought socialism is the step towards communism. What they say about communism makes sense to me. The government are in control- how is that having equality? They are above all people aren't they?

[Guest1]

They mistake the authoritarian rape of quasi-Socialism with Communism.

[marxstudent]

Eh? Explain please.

[Man in the White Shirt]

The idea that a country can progress from socialism to commuism is crazy. Under a socialist banner the revolution is only trading one group of leaders for another, history really backs this up. Even if the revolution puts a man in power who truly wants to progress to communism, lets say Lenin for the sake of arguement, socialism just opens the door for a less ideological leader to take power. By keeping the organs of governemnt he is just allowing a man like Stalin, a great political in-fighter, to use it to move up unto the top. And leaders like Stalin, while strong, tend to hurt the revolution more then help it, throught the enviable backlash.

Communism can only be achieved through revolution, and only directly to communism. Any other method is too risky.

Socialism is, in my humble opinion, a way of watering down Marxism and trying making it an acceptable political idea to the ruling class.

[Bradyman]

I'll have to disagree with you there Man in the White Shirt.

I truly believe that socialism is a step towards communism. Socialism is explained as the workers who have the power. And under such conditions, the employer, the coporate executive and other such positions would diminish completely.

Once such positions have been destroyed, people would then have to pursue the job of the worker. In this sense, all the people are workers, they are all the same class and thus there is no class.

Now, for marxstudent. Just as Che y Marijuana said, they are misrepresenting communism. The "communism" they speak of was the society under Stalin. They talk of "communism" as it is refered to in popular culture, they use it so that people won't misinterpret their "socialists" ideas for the popular idea of what communism is.

[redstar2000]

The Socialist Party USA is, of course, another left fossil. It was politically significant for the last time in the 1930s.

To the extent that their members remain politically active, their activity consists of organizing electoral support for "left" candidates of the Democratic Party.

They don't have any idea of what communism is...they think that the USSR, etc. were "communist" countries.

I doubt, in fact, that they have more than a vague memory of what socialism is.

Still, if you want to read some interesting history of early radicalism in America, you can look up their activity in the period 1900-1920. Along with Lenin's Bolsheviks, they were the only other party in the 2nd International not to support World War I.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[marxstudent]

Mmk thanks.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 06:11 PM



To the extent that their members remain politically active, their activity consists of organizing electoral support for "left" candidates of the Democratic Party.


That's false. We have candidates running for president and do not support either of the two capitalist parties. We have however supported the efforts of the Green Party.



They don't have any idea of what communism is...they think that the USSR, etc. were "communist" countries.

We reject the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the idea of democratic-centralism. I think these are a couple of the major issues where we disagree with Marxists-Leninist (although we are multitendancy party). If you look, you'll notice that when referring to these so called "Communist" states we place the word "Communist" in quotes to show that these states were communist in name only.




I doubt, in fact, that they have more than a vague memory of what socialism is.


What are you basing this on?

[redstar2000]

If I have to work, you do too! ;)


The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system.

Even for the old capitalist class? Even for reactionary religious cults? Even for Nazis, Klansmen, etc.?


In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.

What about the abolition of wage-slavery?


The Socialist Party is a "multi-tendency" organization. We orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various underlying philosophies and views of the world. Solidarity within the party

What tendencies? I can see the evidence for a socialist-feminist tendency, but no others.


Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes, which constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.

By participating in local government, socialists can support movements of working people and make improvements that illustrate the potential of public ownership. We support electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system.

Is it your plan to win a majority in congress and win the presidency (and appoint a majority of the supreme court) and then introduce the appropriate amendments to the constitution, which will then be approved by your majorities in the upper and lower chambers of 3/4ths of the states?


No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its oppressors. A society based on radical democracy, with power exercised through people's organizations, requires a socialist transformation from below.

Is this a "discreet" way of calling for proletarian revolution (in which case all that electoral crap is irrelevant)...or is it just "smoke and mirrors"?

I apologize for suggesting that you were operating as a "left" inside the Democratic Party...perhaps I confused you with the "Democratic Socialists of America".

I don't think much of the prospects of reviving social democracy at this late date--though naturally I applaud your rejection of Leninist vanguardism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

Our concept of revolution is more of a "social revolution." What I mean is that revolution is not going to break out tomorrow. People in this country are so blinded by US Capitalist hegemony that they don't see how it's the system that is the cause of so many of our problems. We don't want some "vanguard" party to try and start a revolution when people are not generally in support of it.

When we speak of a "socialist transformation from below" and say that "by participating in local government, socialists can support movements of working people and make improvements that illustrate the potential of public ownership" we mean that we have to build support at the local level (things like city council for example) and then expand from there. As the movement grows, more and more people will speak out and against the system. If the movement becomes large enough it cannot be ignored (if it is, then there is the unfortunate possibility of a violent outbreak/revolution).

As for the Democratic Socialists of America, I agree that their traditional role of operating in the Democratic Party directly is a waste of time. There are some, including myself, who are trying to move the organization away from this tactic. Besides, I think the Communist Party USA has taken the role of being a so-called marxists party who always supports the Democrats. :lol:

EDIT: One of things I like about the DSA is that they expressly speak out against Democratic-Centralism in their constitution.