Campaign for a United Socialist Party - CUSP

[Creative Destruction]

There's this campaign being started right now, called Campaign for a United Socialist Party that is, as suggested, trying to get socialists united under one electoral banner. They're feeling pretty hot considering the recent Seattle election.

Have y'all heard about this? Any thoughts on it?

http socialistconvergence(dot)webs(dot)com

Their open letter is available on the front page.

[Decolonize The Left]

From their FAQ:

What is the internal structure of CUSP?
50% anarchy, 50% consultative dictatorship with coup d'etats permitted.

Can't really see this ending well...

[Creative Destruction]

I'd take it with a grain of salt. The entire FAQ seems tongue in cheek. Right now, they seem to just be trying to organizing, and the entity's solid internal structure would come later.

[The Idler]

A webs dot com address. Better take these guys seriously.

[Sam_b]

A webs dot com address. Better take these guys seriously.

Too lazy to critique the content, or are you just looking for a way of earning more infractions?

Regardless, I don't really understand the page much, I'm assuming it's just one or two people (OP?) and not much of a campaign when it's just a web page.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, I'm not involved with the campaign. I like the idea, and it appears that they have held some meetings. I've tried contacting them a couple times to get in touch with their coordinators, but I haven't received any response back. So, I suppose that could be considered a harbinger of how it'll turn out.

[Popular Front of Judea]

"Talking about Occupy Wall Street is like beating a dead horse at this point, but it’s a dead horse that haunts everything we do..." "So the dead horse is still with us, though far more important than its corpse is its disembodied spirit. It seems to be looking for a new body…"

They do have a way with words.

[Questionable]

This looks lame. What's their programme, their theory? All I see is a bunch of ranting about how we could have this huge massive party but with no explanation of how we'll go about forming it, nor how it will be managed once it is run.

Hell, they even admit that they have no clear conception of socialism, and are basically looking to "ride the wave" and figure things out later.

It reminds me of the kind of economism that Lenin polemicized against in What Is To Be Done?

[Popular Front of Judea]

They are not seeking to create a new revolutionary organization -- as if the world needed yet another one. They merely want more visibility for the socialist option, which they hope would lead to a multi-tendency socialist party. So say us all.

Fair amount of procedural common sense in their FAQ:

http://socialistconvergence.webs.com/faq

[Consistent.Surprise]

My head hurts reading through it; they have the worst editorial skills I've seen since middle school.

[Consistent.Surprise]

They are not seeking to create a new revolutionary organization -- as if the world needed yet another one. They merely want more visibility for the socialist option, which they hope would lead to a multi-tendency socialist party. So say us all.

Fair amount of procedural common sense in their FAQ:

http://socialistconvergence.webs.com/faq

This isn't BSG, so, no, so say a few but aren't all.

This makes me worry & fear a lovely knife in the true leftists backs. Their poor conceptualization of what they want to create makes me realize they're lost & need to think things out before presenting something so tossed together.

I'm thinking flames as the ship goes down because without any structural ideas well written, it's a joke.

Edit: had to edit. Because I care about that stuff.

[Popular Front of Judea]

They are lost -- as are we, if we are honest with ourselves. This poorly thought out attempt will fade into the internet white noise. The hope behind it will remain.


This isn't BSG, so, no, so say a few but aren't all.

This is makes me worry & fear a lovely knife in the true leftists backs. Their poor conceptualization of what they want to create makes me realize they're lost & need to think things out before presenting something so tossed together.

I'm thinking flames because without any structural ideas well written, it's a joke.

[servusmoderni]

I agree, uniting is the main thing we should do.

[enrages]

I just wanted to address some of the comments and criticisms here. I'm an organizer with the Campaign for a United Socialist Party, and I would agree with some of the complaints about the inadequacy of our web presence or the need for our writing to become more polished. These are major subjects of internal discussion. I feel confident that both will significantly improve in the near future.

While I echo these concerns, I am disappointed by the uncomradely tone of many of these remarks. I think the issue of left strategy is far too important for CUSP's perspective to simply be dismissed. The writing is raw and unpolished, but the questions it raises are quite serious.

According to the lowest poll numbers produced by Rasmussen, one in every five Americans has a positive reaction to the word socialism. The Gallup and the Pew Research center polls are even more in our favor, and among key demographics (people of color, youth, low incomer brackets) the percentages of people who view socialism positively are much higher. Moreover, polls that ask respondents to react to specific social policies routinely find that the public at large is at odds with the conservative beltway consensus on issues like education, environmental protection, tax policy, and so forth. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the American public is unreceptive to socialist politics.

If we are losing, it is not because of the inherent conservatism of the American people. This is especially true in the present conjuncture. Class antagonism has become palatable, which is in large part due to Occupy Wall Street's intervention. The recession has further eroded the quality of life of working people who were already stretched to the breaking point by forty years of brutal neoliberal reforms. And the bourgeoisie seems totally incapable of acting in its own long-term collective interests to either set the economy on a more secure footing or to ameliorate the suffering of the working class. In short, there exists every precondition for the left to be successful. Why then do we continue to be a marginal if not irrelevant force in American politics? Why have we failed to attract anything even resembling a mass base?

With some exceptions, most socialist or communist organizations have had decades to test their strategies. Some have won truly inspiring victories, but none have made even modest progress toward pushing back the advancing bourgeoisie. We've won battles here and there, but it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that we're losing a war of attrition. Why then are these groups so wedded to the same old strategies and worse for wear party lines if they have so consistently failed to produce lasting victories? If we honestly add up the triumphs and defeats of the American left over the past five years (much less the last forty), can anyone honestly tell me that we're coming out ahead?

So despite the most favorable circumstances in forty years, we have not advanced one inch toward victory. Not one inch. It seems like it is time we tried something different. We all owe it to ourselves and to the working people whom we claim to fight for to reassess our strategy, consolidate our forces, and make a serious and concerted effort to build organizations that are capable of rising to the enormous task of winning a more just, democratic and sustainable society. If we fail, the environmental devastation being wrought by further capitalist development may permanently foreclose the possibility of socialism.

I do not claim to know whether CUSP's approach to socialist unity is going to produce any such organization. That kind of certainty is beyond what anyone can reasonably claim. And I'm the first to admit that the present state of our web design and writing leaves much to be desired. I had many reservations about joining the campaign when I first discovered it. I decided to put my reservations aside; because, I believe that the American left is faced with desperate circumstances. If we are to begin advancing, I think we need to coalesce around a minimal set of principles and begin working together, pooling our resources, and learning from one another so we can become more effective combatants against the bourgeoisie. It's a modest and eminently reasonable goal; if it seems impossible then that only speaks to the degree to which our present practices are unreasonable and desperately need to change.

My comments and analysis are my own, and I have not spoken in an official capacity. With that said, I'll be happy to address any other questions or constructive criticisms.

[hashem]

a true unity is based on class struggle against non proletarian ideologies within worker movement, not a simple reconciliation (http://www.ranjbaran.org/01_english/?page_id=116)

[Popular Front of Judea]

a true unity is based on class struggle against non proletarian ideologies within worker movement, not a simple reconciliation (http://www.ranjbaran.org/01_english/?page_id=116)

Yes because the workers movement is not divided and demoralized enough. What is needed is more fraternal bloodletting. You betcha.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Yes because the workers movement is not divided and demoralized enough. What is needed is more fraternal bloodletting. You betcha.

That wasn't bloodletting, it was the reality of this idealistic unicorns shitting rainbows idea.

ANYONE that organizes anything knows the plan they present must not only be well written but already supported. I don't see the SL, CPUSA, SEP or any other group mentioned as backing this pipe dream on shrooms. No plan. No program. What's the point in defending when, as stated, what will unify us is that we are all working class? That should be THE focus.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yeah let's just bludgeon that rainbow shitting unicorn and call it a day.


That wasn't bloodletting, it was the reality of this idealistic unicorns shitting rainbows idea.

ANYONE that organizes anything knows the plan they present must not only be well written but already supported. I don't see the SL, CPUSA, SEP or any other group mentioned as backing this pipe dream on shrooms. No plan. No program. What's the point in defending when, as stated, what will unify us is that we are all working class? That should be THE focus.

[enrages]

That wasn't bloodletting, it was the reality of this idealistic unicorns shitting rainbows idea.

ANYONE that organizes anything knows the plan they present must not only be well written but already supported. I don't see the SL, CPUSA, SEP or any other group mentioned as backing this pipe dream on shrooms. No plan. No program. What's the point in defending when, as stated, what will unify us is that we are all working class? That should be THE focus.

On behalf of the rainbow shitting unicorns (honestly one of the nicest things my theoretical interlocutors have called me), I would point out that the campaign is new, so it would be highly unrealistic to expect that groups like CPUSA or SEP are going to immediately sign on. This is a process that will take time. Nevertheless, I have it on good authority that some groups have already responded positively to our initial missive, and I look forward to being able to discuss those developments when things have been finalized.


a true unity is based on class struggle against non proletarian ideologies within worker movement, not a simple reconciliation


Let me just say that that I do not think reflexive negativity and ingrained dogmatism are virtues, especially when the need for effective socialist politics is so great. The basis of any discussion of strategy needs to be a realistic appraisal of where we are. Only by carefully examining the present American political landscape can we find a way forward. I cannot guarantee that CUSP's approach is correct; however, we have started from such an examination. I am not convinced that you or any of our other detractors have undertaken any kind of similar inquiry, which leads me to question the efficacy of your approach. Less dogma, more data--that's a pretty good formula for how to devise a better strategy.

[Rayek]

I read Lenin's What Is To Be Done within its historical context, that there already existed a massive international leftist movement and that peeling away from it made sense in that a single direction was gained. Cleaving to one party platform made sense, it was a good policy, and one that paid off post-October.

I can acknowledge this, while still seeing that politics have drastically changed in 100 years, and that efforts from the capitalist class have greatly marginalized all socialist tendencies, to the point that we virtually have no power to organize or change anything. This is why I support the basic idea presented by CUSP. Divisiveness does absolutely nothing when the enemy is clear, and our goals (in the broader context) are the same. I also like the idea of starting locally, and seeing as my current state is rife with anarchists, I think joining forces with them would only help the left's efforts towards its primary end goal. Similarly, even though I think an electoral strategy is kind of a waste of time, I can see someone in a third party getting massive support only helping raise awareness for the struggles of working people.

I don't know, call me naive, but the division within leftist tendencies is what's keeping us from making any change, and that in any revolution, strength increases with membership and unity.

I'll be following CUSP closely, and participating where I can.

[Saturn]

I co-founded the thing in May. It has grown since. I apologize to whomever has been trying to contact us unsuccessfully; to be honest lately our volume has been hard to deal with but we'll work it out. You can contact me on here or whatever you like. Your best bet is hitting me up as Saturn Concentric on Facebook.

Yes we have meetings, alternately by conference call or by group chat. We contacted about 150 people last weekend, a good number by phone. Someone is working on our new website, slower than we prefer, but because we don't want to be jerks we're letting him take his time. We are in discussions about what type of formal democracy we will use; so far we've been too focused on getting stuff done to really get bogged down in that.

If you want a "programme" as a basic condition of operating, that attitude itself is part of what's wrong with the Left. But I suppose we have something like one. The following list is not exhaustive, it's really just off the top of my head. Our basics are
(1) we want to form an independent socialist party, which means
(2) we're not Democrats, or even Greens though Greens are good people IMO
(3) we allow dual membership with all red groups in order to avoid being one more sad competitor for recruits, and encourage other groups do the same (we just succeeded with Philly Socialists)
(4) we are not the future party; we are a sustained campaign to call for some type of merger
(5) we do not necessarily advocate groups dissolving during this merger; they can stay intact as part of a front

I personally have a whole pile of writings in various places about this which may be interesting to the more critically-minded. Aw crap my post count is too low to post links. You're big kids, find em yourself.

I'll be honest that, though I am a revolutionist, I tend to be dismissive of criticisms which place purity and structure over acknowledging the simple need to utilize the tremendous opening which this historical period offers us. Sure, revolution and organization matter, yes, but I think they are more conversations that could/should be had within a broad party than arguments against one. You know, go to the masses, instead of expecting them to go to you.


I am here to field questions though I won't check with super-frequency. Hit up my FB and I'm willing to have phone conversations with people who don't waste my time trying to convert me to their sect (it's happened...).

[Saturn]

Kind of funny that socialists are calling something rainbows and unicorns when we believe in a society where everyone gets along.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I love being misquoted.

When your group learns to read & use correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar (yes, that is an Oxford comma), present your dream of Sparts getting along with the CPUSA. Until then, I'll opt for reality.

[hashem]

Kind of funny that socialists are calling something rainbows and unicorns when we believe in a society where everyone gets along.

only in communism, when class differences have been destroyed, "everyone gets along". until then, there is need for class struggle against bourgeoisie and its opportunist servants. without a decisive struggle against bourgeois ideology which sometimes hides itself behind a leftist mask, this struggle cannot be successful. communists cant "get along" with opportunists and unite with them for the same reason that proletariat cant "get along" with bourgeoisie.

[Popular Front of Judea]

only in communism, when class differences have been destroyed, "everyone gets along". until then, there is need for class struggle against bourgeoisie and its opportunist servants. without a decisive struggle against bourgeois ideology which sometimes hides itself behind a leftist mask, this struggle cannot be successful. communists cant "get along" with opportunists and unite with them for the same reason that proletariat cant "get along" with bourgeoisie.

Ray O. Light is going to lead us to the socialist promised land? Talk about rainbow shitting unicorns.

[Creative Destruction]

Ray O. Light is going to lead us to the socialist promised land? Talk about rainbow shitting unicorns.

That's really kind of the great irony. Ideological purists have such a strong reaction against working with anyone that they consider to be an "opportunist," that they would rather sit around and circle jerk about their theories rather than do anything that would amount to effective action because they think these "opportunists" have political cooties or something.

The working class doesn't give a shit about your strict political doctrinism. Your theory isn't going to get them shelter, food and get their kids educated. The Black Panthers understood this, which is why Fred Hampton was pushing for the Rainbow Coalition and why the BPP pushed the Survival Programs. The Philly Socialists know this right now. Action is always more important than remaining ideologically pure.

[hashem]

That's really kind of the great irony. Ideological purists have such a strong reaction against working with anyone that they consider to be an "opportunist," that they would rather sit around and circle jerk about their theories rather than do anything that would amount to effective action because they think these "opportunists" have political cooties or something.

The working class doesn't give a shit about your strict political doctrinism. Your theory isn't going to get them shelter, food and get their kids educated. The Black Panthers understood this, which is why Fred Hampton was pushing for the Rainbow Coalition and why the BPP pushed the Survival Programs. The Philly Socialists know this right now. Action is always more important than remaining ideologically pure.

sometimes communists can and should cooperate with some sections of petty bourgeoisie or even bourgeoisie for certain tactical purposes and immediate reforms but this does not mean becoming one with them or putting aside an independent proletarian line.

in Germany, MLPD cooperates with Die Linke about immediate reforms but at the same time it exposes the reformist nature of Die Linke and stays independent from it.

you can also refer to Lenin's arguments about liquidators who formed the "August bloc" which was supposed to bring unity based on reconciliation and putting aside political differences but only brought more disunity, confusion and passivity.

[Creative Destruction]

Lenin's arguments about liquidationism don't apply here. CUSP is not arguing for consolidating to form a party line in favor of some other communist or socialist sect. They made that very clear in their FAQ.

[hashem]

Lenin's arguments about liquidationism don't apply here. CUSP is not arguing for consolidating to form a party line in favor of some other communist or socialist sect. They made that very clear in their FAQ.

Not arguing for an independent proletarian party can only make things worse. a multi-tendency alliance (if it doesnt want to be a mere chatting place) has to take political positions about different issues which makes it a political party even if its not willing to become one. but this party's ideology will be a mixture of different class ideologies and since proletariat has no independent party or a firm organization in USA, bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideologies will have the upper hand.

you cant have an effective and positive influence on other sections of population until proletariat hasnt organized itself even in a basic political form. instead of mixing proletarian and non proletarian ideologies in a multi-tendency party, communists should try to organize a proletarian party and then gain allies for proletariat.

[Dabrowski]

Bourgeois elections do not allow the proletariat a path to power. They are used by revolutionary socialists as a platform for propaganda, to reach the workers who are interested in politics but still under the sway of bourgeois democratic illusions.

So then what is the program of a "united socialist party"? Garbage! Most socialists hate socialism. It would be criminal for communists to help fake socialist liberals inculcate the masses with their nationalist, reformist, liberal garbage propaganda.

[Fred]

Bourgeois elections do not allow the proletariat a path to power. They are used by revolutionary socialists as a platform for propaganda, to reach the workers who are interested in politics but still under the sway of bourgeois democratic illusions.

So then what is the program of a "united socialist party"? Garbage! Most socialists hate socialism. It would be criminal for communists to help fake socialist liberals inculcate the masses with their nationalist, reformist, liberal garbage propaganda.

Well done, comrade! A fine way to explicate why this is a bad idea to those that might learn something from a real discussion! I get really frustrated with the level of self-righteous indignation that is endemic to the SL and IG, even though I have long supported their program. This is not 1917, 1934, or even 1969. While I understand the historical circumstances that have brought us to the current state of affairs, it is almost comical for a group of say 30 people, to have that degree of arrogance.

As for the question at hand. There are several reasons why revolutionaries would tend to take a dim view of this "unity" project.

1. As comrade Dabrowski suggested, communists use bourgeois elections as a platform for propaganda, and absolutely not to promote any notion that the proletariat can come to power through elections.

2. The notion that groups with antithetical programs such as the Spartacists and the CPUSA could co-exist within one organization really is foolish. That can happen under certain circumstances, such as SDS in the 1960s, but that organization had a very brief life and was extremely unstable. In addition, it was made possible by the very particular circumstances of the time. For revolutionaries, the utility of SDS was that it was a forum for winning young comrades over to a revolutionary perspective.

3. For Marxists, political program is key. This kind of coalition or whatever you want to call it, only serves to muddy the waters. Program is all we really have -- that is why we get indignant at the suggestion of watering it down. We know from history that this leads nowhere but to defeat. So unity is a great thing, in the service of a revolutionary program. In the service of pro-Democratic (or Green) Party supporting reformists, it is a hindrance to revolutionary struggle. Inevitably the program of the group is that of the lowest common denominator (reformist, anti-revolutionary)

4. Implicit in this project is the idea that the reason the left is where it is today has to do with the way it has "marketed" itself. I think that is absolutely incorrect. The historical circumstances that have brought us to the current pass are complex -- and they certainly are connected to failures of revolutionary leadership (subjective circumstances) but they are far more connected to the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR than they are to the failure of leftists in the US to find a sexy approach to the masses.

The notion that 20% of the population might view "socialism" positively sounds a lot sexier than it might be. What do people have in mind when they say that? Sweden? Certainly not Cuba, Vietnam or the fSU. While a lot of the left was swooning over the Occupy movement, revolutionaries knew at a glance that in and of itself it was not going anywhere. It had no program and drew no class line. Which is not to say leftists should ignore developments like that -- but should try to bring a revolutionary Leninist program to it. The current situation in much of the world today is pretty gloomy for communists. That will change, I'm sure, but let's call a spade a spade. The struggle continues, but not under the conditions of our own choosing.