Spusa

[Bostana]

Hey quick question:
What is your guys' view of SPUSA (Socialist Party United States of America) Are they any good or slaves to the Democrat party like CPUSA?

[GoddessCleoLover]

They are reformists for sure.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am a leaving member. There are other current and ex members on the forum. The could give you detailed reports on the party and if you search different threads you will find good discussion on the party.

I could write more when I get out of school today.

[Bostana]

So what would be the recommended Socialist Party in the U.S.?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Are you referring specifically to SPUSA or to socialistic groups more generally?

[Bostana]

Are you referring specifically to SPUSA or to socialistic groups more generally?

The SPUSA

[Lucretia]

Hey quick question:
What is your guys' view of SPUSA (Socialist Party United States of America) Are they any good or slaves to the Democrat party like CPUSA?

This has been discussed quite a lot. The prevailing consensus seems to be that the party is a graveyard for revolutionary activity, with democrat-boosters and social-dem types in the leadership posts to ensure that no groups of revolutionaries can organize for very long within its ranks.

[Prometeo liberado]

I was a member for 3 years and I have to concur with most everyone here. They remind me alot of the CPUSA. Difference being that at least the CPUSA try and be slick about it where as the Socialist party does this collective throwing up of the hands as if to say "what do you want me to do about it". SPUSA a bad choice that gets worse every day.

[Ilyich]

Unlike the CPUSA, they are completely independent of the Democratic Party. They are not, however, a revolutionary party. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric like I was. About eight months ago, I joined the Socialist Party USA, encouraged by what I saw as the revolutionary spirit of some of the rank-and-file and by my own city’s history with the party. Soon, however, I came to realize that the leadership of the party is right-wing, bureaucratic, hypocritical, semi-inactive and generally anti-communist.

The party describes itself as a multi-tendency organization. They claim to be open to Marxists/class struggle socialists, religious socialists, social democrats, councilists/Luxemburgists, humanists, anarchists, and eclectic socialists. There probably are people of varying political shades in the party. However, they make up an impotent force within the party. Those with the real power, those who decide party policy and direct party activities are mostly right-wing social democrats. There might be a couple token revolutionaries on the National Committee, but there power amounts to nothing.

The party is also very bureaucratic. The party, being opposed to democratic centralism, gives its regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy. Still, power over the party as a whole is not in the hands of the sometimes revolutionary rank-and-file but is instead in the hands of the reformist bureaucrats at the NYC branch. The day-to-day activities of the party are run by the National Committee which is not elected by the rank-and-file but is elected by the National Convention. The Committee, in turn, elects party officers. There have been attempts in the past to revolutionize the party. Those members who attempt things like this are often expelled by the bureaucracy.

The party is hypocritical. As was mentioned, the party is very bureaucratic. One might think that the bureaucratic authoritarianism which persists in the party might stop them from criticizing what they see (often falsely) as the authoritarianism of others. It does not. For instance, they reject democratic centralism and do not allow Leninists in the party. They claim democratic centralism is too authoritarian for such a democratic organization. They also consider post-1917 Soviet Russia and Cuba totalitarian states.

The party is not very active. My branch is not active, at least. This is to be expected with a party that is so multi-tendency that they have no coherent program. The energy they do have is often directed into electoral campaigns. Elections can be a good agitprop technique. Also, if socialist candidates are elected, they may be in a position to push through reforms which can further the cause of revolution and improve the lives of working people on the spot. However, the party believes that socialism can be implemented from above after the socialist candidates win elections. Unfortunately, the bourgeoisie will never willingly give up power and the party fails to understand that.

Finally, the Socialist Party, USA is not a communist party. It is, in fact, an anti-communist party. In chapter two of The Communist Manifesto, “Proletarians and Communists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm),” Marx and Engels give a list of the basic demands of communists. Compare this with the party platform and you will find many differences. For instance, the party does not advocate the abolition of private property. The 2008 party presidential candidate, Brian Moore, called communism an authoritarian system. On its website’s introduction page, the party says it opposes communism.

In short, I would recommend that you not join the SPUSA. These links might be of interest:

Socialist Party, USA (http://sp-usa.org/)

Party Constitution (http://socialistparty-usa.org/constitution.html)

Party Handbook (http://socialistparty-usa.org/handbook/)

Party Platform (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/)

[Bostana]

Unlike the CPUSA, they are completely independent of the Democratic Party. They are not, however, a revolutionary party. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric like I was. About eight months ago, I joined the Socialist Party USA, encouraged by what I saw as the revolutionary spirit of some of the rank-and-file and by my own city’s history with the party. Soon, however, I came to realize that the leadership of the party is right-wing, bureaucratic, hypocritical, semi-inactive and generally anti-communist.

The party describes itself as a multi-tendency organization. They claim to be open to Marxists/class struggle socialists, religious socialists, social democrats, councilists/Luxemburgists, humanists, anarchists, and eclectic socialists. There probably are people of varying political shades in the party. However, they make up an impotent force within the party. Those with the real power, those who decide party policy and direct party activities are mostly right-wing social democrats. There might be a couple token revolutionaries on the National Committee, but there power amounts to nothing.

The party is also very bureaucratic. The party, being opposed to democratic centralism, gives its regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy. Still, power over the party as a whole is not in the hands of the sometimes revolutionary rank-and-file but is instead in the hands of the reformist bureaucrats at the NYC branch. The day-to-day activities of the party are run by the National Committee which is not elected by the rank-and-file but is elected by the National Convention. The Committee, in turn, elects party officers. There have been attempts in the past to revolutionize the party. Those members who attempt things like this are often expelled by the bureaucracy.

The party is hypocritical. As was mentioned, the party is very bureaucratic. One might think that the bureaucratic authoritarianism which persists in the party might stop them from criticizing what they see (often falsely) as the authoritarianism of others. It does not. For instance, they reject democratic centralism and do not allow Leninists in the party. They claim democratic centralism is too authoritarian for such a democratic organization. They also consider post-1917 Soviet Russia and Cuba totalitarian states.

The party is not very active. My branch is not active, at least. This is to be expected with a party that is so multi-tendency that they have no coherent program. The energy they do have is often directed into electoral campaigns. Elections can be a good agitprop technique. Also, if socialist candidates are elected, they may be in a position to push through reforms which can further the cause of revolution and improve the lives of working people on the spot. However, the party believes that socialism can be implemented from above after the socialist candidates win elections. Unfortunately, the bourgeoisie will never willingly give up power and the party fails to understand that.

Finally, the Socialist Party, USA is not a communist party. It is, in fact, an anti-communist party. In chapter two of The Communist Manifesto, “Proletarians and Communists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm),” Marx and Engels give a list of the basic demands of communists. Compare this with the party platform and you will find many differences. For instance, the party does not advocate the abolition of private property. The 2008 party presidential candidate, Brian Moore, called communism an authoritarian system. On its website’s introduction page, the party says it opposes communism.

In short, I would recommend that you not join the SPUSA. These links might be of interest:

Socialist Party, USA (http://sp-usa.org/)

Party Constitution (http://socialistparty-usa.org/constitution.html)

Party Handbook (http://socialistparty-usa.org/handbook/)

Party Platform (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/)







Socialist Party USA Link?
Is that Okay?

[Ilyich]

Socialist Party USA Link?
Is that Okay?

What do you mean by that?

[Bostana]

What do you mean by that?

Isn't that SPUSA?
the link you just sent me
http://sp-usa.org/

[Ilyich]

Isn't that SPUSA?
the link you just sent me
http://sp-usa.org/

Yes, that is the link to the SPUSA's website. I was wondering what you meant when you said "Is that okay?"

[Bostana]

Yes, that is the link to the SPUSA's website. I was wondering what you meant when you said "Is that okay?"

Because you just said that SPUSA is bad news

[Ilyich]

Because you just said that SPUSA is bad news

Oh, I understand what you meant now. I just posted the links so you could see for yourself what the SPUSA is like, rather than you having to rely solely on my statement

[Bostana]

Oh, I understand what you meant now. I just posted the links so you could see for yourself what the SPUSA is like, rather than you having to rely solely on my statement

O Okay.
I'm going on your judgment you know more than me.

[Prometeo liberado]

I agree that the SPUSA is not a revolutionary organization in any sense of the word. In another thread a comrade spoke of a large portion of the left wing of the SPUSA leaving the party recently. Unfortunately I am hearing some of the same leadership and lack of democracy grumbles around my organization. Maybe look into the ISO and or Freedom Road. For me I'll stay and fight.