SPUSA questions

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have two questions for SPUSA folks on their party:

1) Why does the Debs Tendency no longer have a website? [Same goes for the Grassroots Tendency]
2) What are the recent developments in the SPUSA, besides the departure of the Fist and Rose Tendency?

[Martin Blank]

I'm not an SP person, but here's what I know:


1) Why does the Debs Tendency no longer have a website? [Same goes for the Grassroots Tendency]

The Debs Tendency is having some issues with their host. They should have it up soon. Who knows why the GRT don't have a site, if they ever did.


2) What are the recent developments in the SPUSA, besides the departure of the Fist and Rose Tendency?

Mostly a bunch of wrangling between the few remaining social dems in the SP and the party membership as a whole. For the most part, though, it seems that the raucous fighting has subsided for now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Debs Tendency is having some issues with their host. They should have it up soon.

Thanks!


Who knows why the GRT don't have a site, if they ever did.

They just have a cover page that has no links except to the main SPUSA website. :(


Mostly a bunch of wrangling between the few remaining social dems in the SP and the party membership as a whole. For the most part, though, it seems that the raucous fighting has subsided for now.

I've read the crybaby-like whining of the departing "social democrats," crying "purge," "sectarianism," etc. :lol:

[chicanorojo]

I have two questions for SPUSA folks on their party:

1) Why does the Debs Tendency no longer have a website? [Same goes for the Grassroots Tendency]
2) What are the recent developments in the SPUSA, besides the departure of the Fist and Rose Tendency?


We are working on our web page.

I am not sure if the GRT ever had a web page.

FaRT moved on to form their SocDem party (someone will post their link).

SP is working on the electoral campaign and you can get more info at our web page.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ FaRT??? :laugh:

[Sorry, I just have to ask if that is indeed SP-USA colloguialism for that group. :lol: ]

[The Douche]

^^^ FaRT??? :laugh:

[Sorry, I just have to ask if that is indeed SP-USA colloguialism for that group. :lol: ]

I know thats what we called them when I was in the SP.

I am also curious about whatever happend to the grassroots tendency, considering it replaced the tendency I was in.

I have a very bitter taste in my mouth because of my experience with the SP in the Direct Action Tendency.

But I will admit that most of the rank and file I met and commonly conversed with were definitely revolutionaries, contrary to how a lot of people want to portray the SP.

[chicanorojo]

^^^ FaRT??? :laugh:

[Sorry, I just have to ask if that is indeed SP-USA colloguialism for that group. :lol: ]


Well. Really. I mean, they brought all unto themselves:


Fist and Rose Tendency

.....and yes.........some of us were gleeful enough to use it in debates. :cool:

[chicanorojo]

I am also curious about whatever happend to the grassroots tendency, considering it replaced the tendency I was in.



They are still active. Maybe not as a tendency, but doing what has to be done to keep up with the day-to-day organizational work.

[chicanorojo]

They just have a cover page that has no links except to the main SPUSA website.


I don't mean this in the negative, but the key leaders of the GRT are not to much into web pages or even emailing. Part of it might be a generational thing.

[chicanorojo]

But I will admit that most of the rank and file I met and commonly conversed with were definitely revolutionaries, contrary to how a lot of people want to portray the SP.

For the most part, the rank & file are pretty much very active at the local level and not many are involved in the different tendencies w/i the party.

[The Douche]

For the most part, the rank & file are pretty much very active at the local level and not many are involved in the different tendencies w/i the party.

I know, like I said, I found most of them to be a lot more radical than many people (especially on this forum) think the SP is.

I was truly disappointed to have my tendency just be up and replaced out of the blue though. We existed one day, and then the next were told that we were being disbanded by the secretary of party itself.

A lot of what went down with the shutting down of that tendency did not seem to be in line with the party rules.

[chicanorojo]

I was truly disappointed to have my tendency just be up and replaced out of the blue though. We existed one day, and then the next were told that we were being disbanded by the secretary of party itself.


Well. The Natl Secretary did not disband it. It was based on the issue on how tendencies are organized. For example, can tendencies w/i the SP exist with tendency members that are not members of the SP. It came down that no, tendencies must be made up of dues paying members. DAT had members that were and were not members of the party. DAT decided that it could not agree to such decision. DAT members by most part decided to organize the then nascent SDS.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If only an organization like yours existed in Canada... :(

Maybe you could transform the SP-USA into the SPNA (for all of North America)... :(

[The Douche]

Well. The Natl Secretary did not disband it. It was based on the issue on how tendencies are organized. For example, can tendencies w/i the SP exist with tendency members that are not members of the SP. It came down that no, tendencies must be made up of dues paying members. DAT had members that were and were not members of the party. DAT decided that it could not agree to such decision. DAT members by most part decided to organize the then nascent SDS.

This is not how I recall things going down though.

First of all, I was one of those "members" of the tendency that was not a member of the party. And I was not a "member" of the tendency, I was a supporter. There was no discussion that went on between the tendency and then leadership of the party in any open and formal way. An email was sent out by the secretary and he just stated "everybody who's not a member of the SP no longer has voting privlidges in the tendency" which was a serious problem because about half of the steering comittee by this point (including me) were not party members. A debate ensued in which he finally said "the DAT no longer exists as a tendency, all members interested can contact me about the Grassroots Tendency".

And also isn't it against the rules of the party for a national officer to found his own tendency? I might be wrong there, but I thought so.

[chicanorojo]

This is not how I recall things going down though.

First of all, I was one of those "members" of the tendency that was not a member of the party. And I was not a "member" of the tendency, I was a supporter. There was no discussion that went on between the tendency and then leadership of the party in any open and formal way. An email was sent out by the secretary and he just stated "everybody who's not a member of the SP no longer has voting privlidges in the tendency" which was a serious problem because about half of the steering comittee by this point (including me) were not party members. A debate ensued in which he finally said "the DAT no longer exists as a tendency, all members interested can contact me about the Grassroots Tendency".

I don't know that the Natl Sec sent to y'all. But!

Having been a member of the NC around that time and having taken part in the email discussion on this, that's the main reason the tendencies had to clarify vis a vis their tendency membership. After all, think about it, can a party have tendencies/caucuses in which their members are not members of the party? Is this norm in other organizations? This format raised serious issues about involvement of non party members in party business.

Other questions were how to recognize tendencies? How would the tendency structures work w/i the SP? How would they elect their leadership? etc.

The DT had a similar issue. We were getting folks that were interest in the DT, but not in the SP.

After much discussion within the bodies of the SP, it was ruled that tendency members had to be members of the SP. Period. This did not affect the GRT and FaRT since they had all SP members. Did this not affect us since we had not allowed anyone who wasn't a party member. The only one it would affect was DAT and they did not want to follow that ruling. The rest is history.

The main point is that the Natl Secretary followed through on what agreed upon at the higher bodies of the party.


And also isn't it against the rules of the party for a national officer to found his own tendency? I might be wrong there, but I thought so.Short answer: no.

Under what SP constitutional point are you raising?:confused: Which tendency are you talking about? GRT has been around for quiet a while. DAT, DT, and FaRT (yeah, I said it again :D) were of recent creation.

[The Douche]

Having been a member of the NC around that time and having taken part in the email discussion on this, that's the main reason the tendencies had to clarify vis a vis their tendency membership. After all, think about it, can a party have tendencies/caucuses in which their members are not members of the party? Is this norm in other organizations? This format raised serious issues about involvement of non party members in party business.


I say again, that persons who were not members of the party were not elligible for membership in the DAT. I was a DAT supportter, just like all other persons who were not SP members. While this may be a technicality it is a technicality in line with the party's constitution is it not?

No non-party members were involved in party business, as a supporter of the DAT, and even a member of the steering comittee I still had no say in what the SP did, only what the DAT did. None of which was ever contrary to the SP, and I in fact, helped to build up the SP even though I wasn't a member.


GRT has been around for quiet a while. DAT, DT, and FaRT (yeah, I said it again :D) were of recent creation.

Sorry but you are mistaken. The GRT was founded by Pason at the disbanding of the DAT. When I joined the DAT the only other tendencies with the DT and FART. If the GRT was in existence then it was of no importance, the DAT represented the same line of thought as the GRT supposedly upholds (that is libertarian socialism) but with a stronger influence on direct action and forging connections with the anarchist movement. As I recall when Pason finally came out on the email and said the DAT does not exist anymore he told everybody involved who was still interested in libertarian socialism to come to the GRT and gave the impression that he was starting said tendency, but perhaps he was revitalizing it?

[chicanorojo]

I say again, that persons who were not members of the party were not elligible for membership in the DAT. I was a DAT supportter, just like all other persons who were not SP members. While this may be a technicality it is a technicality in line with the party's constitution is it not?


All I can tell you that as of now, as then, no tendency can have any member/supporter that is not a party member. Certain key members of DAT did not want to change this and decided to put their efforts in SDS.



Sorry but you are mistaken. The GRT was founded by Pason at the disbanding of the DAT.Wrong!

Double sorry. But, you are wrong. The GRT has been around a while. Way way way before DAT. It wasn't founded by Pason, but had key members like Eric Chester et al. Most of the cdes came from the Vermont state party and Boston.



When I joined the DAT the only other tendencies with the DT and FART. If the GRT was in existence then it was of no importance,The GRT, as I have mentioned in another part of the forum, never had an email group or web age. They pretty much stuck to Vermon and Boston. So I am not surprised you had not heard about them. GRT is important since their key members are active in commissions and publications.


the DAT represented the same line of thought as the GRT supposedly upholds (that is libertarian socialism) FWIW, GRT has been labelled as "Luxemburgist" and DAT was seen as the home of the libertarian socialists, anarchists, and Wobblies.

But. I'll repeat, Pason never founded the GRT. The GRT was already around when DAT, DT, and FaRT were created.

Just to add. I've in the SP since 1990. I may not have photographic memory, but I have around (18 years) the party long enough to know some of the personalities and groups with in it.

[The Douche]

I don't know where this discussion is going. Obviously I recall things differently from you, and we were on different sides of the situation. I'm sure I'm not 100% right here.

But I'm still sore over what happend to the DAT, I felt like the DAT and the concept of having non-members was a good thing that might've been able to help steer the party in more exciting directions. Part of me, I can't lie, wants to be part of the SP, but I don't think that there is room for me.

[chicanorojo]

I don't know where this discussion is going. Obviously I recall things differently from you, and we were on different sides of the situation. I'm sure I'm not 100% right here.

But I'm still sore over what happend to the DAT, I felt like the DAT and the concept of having non-members was a good thing that might've been able to help steer the party in more exciting directions. Part of me, I can't lie, wants to be part of the SP, but I don't think that there is room for me.


Google "Eric Chester" and "Grassroots Tendency" and you'll find the soc dems pov blogger on the SP history. I disagree with most of what they write, but their time frame is about correct. The GRT came about at the same time as the Comrades Caucus. I think this war around 2000 or 2002. GRT is a small tendency, but it is quiet active. Part of it has to do with the fact that they have members that are active AND write.

FWIW, I was also a member of DAT, but then a good number of cdes were in DAT. A good part went on to become SDS.

[The Douche]

Google "Eric Chester" and "Grassroots Tendency" and you'll find the soc dems pov blogger on the SP history. I disagree with most of what they write, but their frame is 'bout correct. GRT is a small tendency, but it is quiet active. Part of it has to do with the fact that they have members that are active AND write.

FWIW, I was also a member of DAT, but then a good number of cdes were in DAT. A good part went on to become SDS.

Yeah, I know about DAT helping to reform SDS, Tom G actually sent me some old ass pamphlet called syndicalism and schools or something like that, think it was about building student unions on syndicalist principles, seemed kind of odd to me, and then he mentioned SDS (me and the DAT chapter I worked with were/are all very young) but I wasn't in school at the time so I passed it on to some guys who were, they never did anything with it. But as we know now SDS did get off the ground with much thanks due to former DATers.

[chegitz guevara]

I have two questions for SPUSA folks on their party:

1) Why does the Debs Tendency no longer have a website? [Same goes for the Grassroots Tendency]
2) What are the recent developments in the SPUSA, besides the departure of the Fist and Rose Tendency?

1a) As has been mentioned, there is a problem with the ISP. Basically they're impossible to get ahold of to let them know the credit card has changed. Four of the twenty five members of the national leadership (which includes 11 alternates) are members of this tendency, including myself. The DT is vaguely Trotskyist in ideology. The male Vice-Chair is a member of the Debs Tendency.

1b) Grass Roots has always been something of a secretive tendency. It's a fairly regional tendency, mostly in New England. Six of the members of the national leadership are members of the GRT, as far as we know. They don't make their membership known. GRT is vaguely Luxemburgist in ideology. I believe our national co-chair, Jerry Levy (to whom I lost the election by one vote, argh--he's really a great leader, actually, better than I would have been) is a member.

Both tendencies, being revolutionary, tend to block together, but we don't agree on everything. I frequently find myself at odds with the assumed leader of the GRT, Eric Chester. There are at least three other revolutionaries on the national leadership, which puts the majority in the hands of the revolutionairies, theoretically.

2) FaRT mostly resigned, after a long and futile battle to take control of the party. The outcome was never seriously in doubt, but they made a lot of noise and seemed bigger than they were. Although they always claimed to be waging their battle in the name of democracy, they never accepted the results of their defeat. They current incarnation has coalesced in the Social Democrats of the United States of America. It is an exceedingly authoritarian organization, according to their constitution, but with only 8 members nationwide, who gives a fuck. At the end, non-FRT social democrats turned on FRT and threw one of them out of the party and the last one finally resigned (the only one with any integrity in my opinion, which is why I'm sorry to see him go).

Much of our political activity this year has been focused around the election, this being an election year and all. That said, we took part in the National Assembly Against the Occupation of Iraq and Afganistan. We're very active in antiwar work and the Fair Food struggle (farm workers justice).

Some of the stuff I'm most proud of is the work we've done with other socialist organizations. For example, Freedom Socialist Party collected signatures to get our candidate on the ballot in Washington. One of our comrades went to Venezuela on a trip with Workers World and the SP and WWP (and I don't know who else) are doing joint work in Boston (and now in South Florida as well, I'm happy to report). We have a number of comrades, including myself, running for public office. I'm so damn pissed at myself for getting a filing date wrong and having to be a write-in candidate in a year when many people want to flay their Democratic congressmen alive.


I know, like I said, I found most of them to be a lot more radical than many people (especially on this forum) think the SP is.

I was truly disappointed to have my tendency just be up and replaced out of the blue though. We existed one day, and then the next were told that we were being disbanded by the secretary of party itself.

A lot of what went down with the shutting down of that tendency did not seem to be in line with the party rules.

That is not what happened. I'm one of the last remaining members of the Direct Action Tendency (and one of the first couple of members of the DAT was well). What happened is that, by and large, the members of DAT decided to up and reform SDS. As SDS is a non-partisan organization, most of the members of DAT quit the party. The tendency was "shut down" because no one was left that upheld it.

DAT was not a political tendency. It posed no ideology nor did it struggle for leadership nor have a political position in the organization. DAT was about building actions, period. In as much as the SP is now very much an activist organization, DAT can be considered one of the more successful tendencies, though it has more to do with the wave of youth who joined and less to do with DAT's example.

[chegitz guevara]

If only an organization like yours existed in Canada... :(

Maybe you could transform the SP-USA into the SPNA (for all of North America)... :(

As I wrote in an email to you, it is against the law for Americans to be members of international revolutionary groups. To what extent the law is enforced, I don't know, but it's best to not give the state a reason to imprison you unless it's important. There is no reason we can't have groups in solidarity in Mexico, Canada, America, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1b) Grass Roots has always been something of a secretive tendency. It's a fairly regional tendency, mostly in New England. Six of the members of the national leadership are members of the GRT, as far as we know. They don't make their membership known. GRT is vaguely Luxemburgist in ideology. I believe our national co-chair, Jerry Levy (to whom I lost the election by one vote, argh--he's really a great leader, actually, better than I would have been) is a member.

Comrade, why so secretive (them)? I've read some disturbing stuff on Rosa Luxemburg by CPGB comrade Mike Macnair:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rosa-luxemburg-sectarian-t92161/index.html?p=1262900#post1262900


2) FaRT mostly resigned, after a long and futile battle to take control of the party. The outcome was never seriously in doubt, but they made a lot of noise and seemed bigger than they were. Although they always claimed to be waging their battle in the name of democracy, they never accepted the results of their defeat. They current incarnation has coalesced in the Social Democrats of the United States of America. It is an exceedingly authoritarian organization, according to their constitution, but with only 8 members nationwide, who gives a fuck. At the end, non-FRT social democrats turned on FRT and threw one of them out of the party and the last one finally resigned (the only one with any integrity in my opinion, which is why I'm sorry to see him go).

I hope not David McReynolds... :(

[Unless you have inside info on the guy that brings into question his integrity, notwithstanding his pacifism]

The non-FRT soc-dems remind me of the few pro-party Mensheviks during the liquidationism drama, given the SDUSA's Obama-ism.