Log in

View Full Version : A Socialist in Despair



Gormanilius
12th August 2012, 00:56
It has been about a month since my membership with the Socialist Party USA lapsed. I joined them initially due to Victorian notions of joining the party of Eugene V. Debs, a dedicated revolutionary socialist. When my membership lapsed, it wasn’t so much for my dislike of the organization or the people in it. I actually find it one of the better organizations out there in the American left.



I don’t want to give up on it. It has amazing potential, but there are certain issues which need to be addressed.


It benefits by having a minimal set of principles (which can be found here) to be accepted, whereas many sects out there requires acceptance of a lot more, which to me is borderline dogma. A revolutionary organization will have disagreements, but so long as these are within agreement of the minimalistic principles, that is fine.



Many comrades left the party, either by way of letting their dues lapse or outright leaving, and went on to form Revolutionary Unity. I am also a member of Revolutionary Unity, but am not giving up on the party just yet.
The flaws with it may have been pointed out on this site before. Perhaps it was a lack of educational program, or maybe it was members feeling more like “donors” to a party than as members of a party. Another is the party-wide ban on members joining who are also members of Democratic Centralist organizations (like the ISO). I think this ban inhibits growth – no other political party has these sorts of policies. It is up to the state one lives in to ensure a person is registered to one party only. The dues should also be collected monthly, rather than annually.



Why post all this here? I want to know what your opinions are on how to improve the Socialist Party USA, particularly if you are or were a member of it. Or perhaps there is something you think that could benefit it from your other experiences? One comrade mentioned it needs a better mixture of vertical vs. horizontal organization, something which I agree with. Others have mentioned a need for an educational program, which I would also agree with.



As for comrades who disagree with electoral action – I respectfully disagree with them. Providing we do not compromise from our positions in hope that we may be better elected, and providing we do not delude ourselves into thinking socialism can be merely legislated into existence, then I find it a useful tactic. Those that do get elected should never moderate, and always fight on the platform from which they were elected.



My influences, in terms of people, are Eugene Debs, Hal Draper, Kautsky, Marx, Luxemburg, De Leon, Lenin, and Trotsky. Now this is not to say I have read or agree with everything of theirs, but I generally like what I have read.

The Idler
12th August 2012, 11:30
Is a program minimalistic because members aren't empowered to control the party above all others? Would the program have to be more extensive if members were fully in control of the party? Or would the party grow by lowering the barrier to entry by dispensing with policies? If there's a section of the party with privileges over another section, will they give them up willingly to members or an imported democratic-centralist entryists? I agree with you about Debs, De Leon and electoral action.

campesino
12th August 2012, 13:15
what is the point of getting elected? or even trying?

Peoples' War
12th August 2012, 13:46
what is the point of getting elected? or even trying?
In the event that it was a party of mass labour, as opposed to one out of a gazillion socialist parties, it would gauge support and provide a platform for propaganda.

Gormanilius
12th August 2012, 19:36
The core principles are minimalistic so as to ensure a central point of unity. They make a clear democratic socialist perspective. Our platform could use some work, and I think the "centralist" aspects should be involved with clearing up the platform and using it as an educational tool for members.

Mainly I worry that we have concentrated power in the organization, as many others are. Sure, some is needed so as to ensure quick decisions, but I am concerned. Recently they dechartered our International Commission, and made a new one. While I agree with the purposes of the new version (which works on alliances rather than putting out statements) I think the move was very un-democratic.

My deal with electoral action is that socialists are not even trying with this one in the US. Most are given up on the tactic, and believe that the revolution will come about any day now. Well the reality does not reflect this utopian ideal. Until the masses have been won over to socialism, we should continue to engage in its popularization (which includes political campaigns)

The_Red_Spark
12th August 2012, 20:49
I think Socialist parties should participate in the electoral process. Though I must say that fruitless and pointless, not to mention expensive, campaigns for president seem fairly ridiculous IMO. I think the effort should be focused at the local level and in particular on positions that are less competitive in general. Once headway is made in entering this arena from the periphery we can gain political viability and credibility if we are able to bring successful changes etc. From there we could aim higher. Yet we cannot expect to jump straight to president from relative obscurity. That seems rather foolish and like the aspirations of political amateurs. Not to mention it is a waste of scarce resources that are better used elsewhere.