Socialist Party-USA members, question!

[The Douche]

In the platform, under labor, point 6 states this:


We support militant, united labor action including hot cargo agreements, and boycotts, factory committees, secondary and sympathy strikes, sit-down strikes, general strikes, and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces. (emphasis added)

Honestly, is this lip service or is this an idea supported by the majority of the party and its leadership?

Really, if the SP were to be elected, and a factory were to be siezed, the owner locked out, and the workers to take over, would the SP use the power of the state to defend these workers?

This has probably been one of the few things in my life that could actually really, really make me look at joining a party.

[trivas7]

Really, if the SP were to be elected, and a factory were to be siezed, the owner locked out, and the workers to take over, would the SP use the power of the state to defend these workers?

Big if, IMO. What socialist party worth their cojones doesn't advocate the eventual expropriation of the means of production?

[The Douche]

Big if, IMO. What socialist party worth their cojones doesn't advocate the eventual expropriation of the means of production?

Well thats kind of my point, the SP, in the past has had reformists and social democrats in it, but I hear they're leaving or have left. I worked with the SP before, but wasn't a member, and it seemed that some people were very opposed to revolutionary socialism.

Lots of parties with the name socialist or communist aren't interested in what those theories actually promote, I'm sure you know that.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Best thing to do is volunteer if you want to but dont put any hope into the party. Parties havent gone anyone anywhere and if they do win, which is unlikely because of the b.s. laws that make it hard on third parties, it doesnt change the fact that the state still exists. If the state still exists, nothing has changed.

[The Douche]

Best thing to do is volunteer if you want to but dont put any hope into the party. Parties havent gone anyone anywhere and if they do win, which is unlikely because of the b.s. laws that make it hard on third parties, it doesnt change the fact that the state still exists. If the state still exists, nothing has changed.

I did work with the party for a time. My tendency was essentially shut down. (in the eyes of other it willingly disbanded, whatever, not the debate for this thread)

I'm really looking for the input of the SPUSA members on this site.

[OI OI OI]

. If the state still exists, nothing has changed.There are two kinds of states, a workers state and a bourgeois state.

Do you thing that if the workers actualy control the state the state will have the same policies as a bourgeois state?

Give me a break.

To the OP, the SPUSA is not revolutionary marxist.

Apart from that it doesn't do much for the creation of a mass labour party in the US.

What the US needs is a mass labour party that will offer an alternative to US workers, with a general socialist platform.

It has to be a coalition of all the left organizations.

And in the party each tendency can be independent.

Something like the Coalition of the Radical Left in Greece , that is composed by Stalinists,Maoists, Trotskyists, Reformists etc.
Although the coalition of the Radical Left is not a step forward in Greece as there exists a mass communist Party, due to uneven development it would be a big step forward in the USA.

But unfortunately people like those in the SPUSA put the interests of their party in a higher level than the interests of the proletariat.

that being said I recommend that you find out more about the IMT and other organizations who stand on that platform.

[The Douche]

There are two kinds of states, a workers state and a bourgeois state.

Do you thing that if the workers actualy control the state the state will have the same policies as a bourgeois state?

Give me a break.

To the OP, the SPUSA is not revolutionary marxist.

Apart from that it doesn't do much for the creation of a mass labour party in the US.

What the US needs is a mass labour party that will offer an alternative to US workers, with a general socialist platform.

It has to be a coalition of all the left organizations.

And in the party each tendency can be independent.

Something like the Coalition of the Radical Left in Greece , that is composed by Stalinists,Maoists, Trotskyists, Reformists etc.
Although the coalition of the Radical Left is not a step forward in Greece as there exists a mass communist Party, due to uneven development it would be a big step forward in the USA.

But unfortunately people like those in the SPUSA put the interests of their party in a higher level than the interests of the proletariat.

that being said I recommend that you find out more about the IMT and other organizations who stand on that platform.

:bored: Could you do me a favor and get the fuck out of my thread with that bullshit?

We all know what you think about every organization that is not the IMT and every individual who is not in the IMT. And we don't give a fuck, so lay off.

[OI OI OI]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/bored.gif Could you do me a favor and get the fuck out of my thread with that bullshit?

We all know what you think about every organization that is not the IMT and every individual who is not in the IMT. And we don't give a fuck, so lay off.first of all I have every right to post my opinion in any thread so stop flaming.

Second of all although I talked specifically about the IMT , I also mentioned that the IMT is one of the many organizations who has the same program about building a labour party. The thing is that I don't know by heart which are these organizations.


Third of all learn to respond like a civilized person.
It seems like you have nothing to say against my brief analysis , you just got upset because I mentioned the IMT.

This tactic of building a labour party in the USA is the only viable tactic that will bring the movement forward for now and lay the basis of building the revolutionary party that will lead the struggle against capitalism in the US.

Originally posted by OIX3
that being said I recommend that you find out more about the IMT and other organizations who stand on that platform.

[The Douche]

first of all I have every right to post my opinion in any thread so stop flaming.

Sweet, to bad you post almost the same thing every time you click that reply button "if its not the IMT its not right".


Second of all although I talked specifically about the IMT , I also mentioned that the IMT is one of the many organizations who has the same program about building a labour party. The thing is that I don't know by heart which are these organizations.

Why can the SP not be a labor party, could you at least include that, you know, some real meat in your posts?


Third of all learn to respond like a civilized person.
It seems like you have nothing to say against my brief analysis , you just got upset because I mentioned the IMT.

I got upset cause you act like a jackass all over this forum.


This tactic of building a labour party in the USA is the only viable tactic that will bring the movement forward for now and lay the basis of building the revolutionary party that will lead the struggle against capitalism in the US.

Labor parties seem to have thus far been unsuccessful, whereas socialist parties have participated in/led revolutions...

[OI OI OI]

Sweet, to bad you post almost the same thing every time you click that reply button "if its not the IMT its not right".

Because you have browsed all of my posts.....
My recent attacks were concerning the IMT due to the various attacks by sectarians.

I assure you that I don't like posting polemics against all sorts of sectarians and this is why I stopped even trying to respond to the as they are a waste of time in my books.



Why can the SP not be a labor party, could you at least include that, you know, some real meat in your posts?

Because it is too tiny obviously.

You cannot just declare, hey I am a labour party.

It has to be something big in order for workers and unions to find out about and join.

The SP can be part of a mass labour party but only in coalition with most of the leftists in the US.



Labor parties seem to have thus far been unsuccessful, whereas socialist parties have participated in/led revolutions...

what the hell?

When I say Labour Party I mean a party of the workers, supported by the Unions with a general socialist platform.

So we talk about the same thing.

only I say that this mass workers party cannot be built by any of the organizations in the US alone.

It has to be a joint effort and it has to focus on gaining the support of the rank and file in the US unions.

[chicanorojo]

In the platform, under labor, point 6 states this:

(emphasis added)

Honestly, is this lip service or is this an idea supported by the majority of the party and its leadership?

Really, if the SP were to be elected, and a factory were to be siezed, the owner locked out, and the workers to take over, would the SP use the power of the state to defend these workers?

This has probably been one of the few things in my life that could actually really, really make me look at joining a party.


It is NOT lip service. One, yes, a good part of the party membership voted for the platform as is. Two, if conditions arise that the SP or ANY socialist movement would gain mass movement, such issues would not be considered out of the mainstream.

[chicanorojo]

I did work with the party for a time. My tendency was essentially shut down. (in the eyes of other it willingly disbanded, whatever, not the debate for this thread)

I'm really looking for the input of the SPUSA members on this site.

So. Why bring it up again?

Were you a member of the party? If so, were u part of the internal NAC and/or NC discussions?

It was not disbanded. To wit. SP decided that internal party tendencies had to be made up of actual dues paying members in good standing. DAT had mixed membership (non-SP members and SP members). DAT did not agree with such policy. DAT moved to SDS. GRT and DT are still active. FaRT moved on to their yahoo email group party.

[The Douche]

So. Why bring it up again?

Were you a member of the party? If so, were u part of the internal NAC and/or NC discussions?

It was not disbanded. To wit. SP decided that internal party tendencies had to be made up of actual dues paying members in good standing. DAT had mixed membership (non-SP members and SP members). DAT did not agree with such policy. DAT moved to SDS. GRT and DT are still active. FaRT moved on to their yahoo email group party.

Relax man, I did not want to bring it up, I had no plans of bringing it up when I started the thread. I started this thread because I am very interested in that statement, possibly so interested that I would consider joining the SP (though I may not be accepted).

I'm not interested in debating this again, from where I was in the DAT the situation looked, and more importantly felt very different. But that is in the past and I don't want to discuss it.

Would you feel comfortable talking about the original subject in the venue of private messages? Mainly because I want to avoid the interference of non-sp members.

[chicanorojo]

Would you feel comfortable talking about the original subject in the venue of private messages? Mainly because I want to avoid the interference of non-sp members.

Discuss the platform position? We can discuss here. No prob from side.

[The Douche]

Discuss the platform position? We can discuss here. No prob from side.

So what you're saying then, is if there where somehow to be a SP executive or an SP majority in congress that these representatives would use the power of the state to defend the siezure of private property? Would the SP also encourage workers to do this? (all of this, is of course assuming the SP is in this type of position)

What would be the SP's position on building dual power? If we had the SP in some sort of executive postion (state or national level) and we were to see workers/neighborhood councils arise, would the SP official use his/her power to recognize these organs over those of the bourgeoise? Would they use thier executive power to defend these organs? And again, would they encourage the creation of this dual power structure?

I understand you cannot speak for every member of the party, and cannot speak to what a certain individual may or may not do, but in theory, would the SP be down with that?

[chegitz guevara]

The SP does not have hegemonic positions. It's a multitendency party, so you have revolutionary Marxists (two different tendencies) as well as social democrats and democratic socialists. The only thing Socialists are required to subscribe to is the Statement of Principles. (http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html) Of course, they have to follow the constitutions of the SPUSA and any state SP of which they are members, as well as any convention resolutions.

chicanorojo and I both belong to the same tendency in the party, the Debs Tendency, which holds to a revolutionary Marxist orientation. They fought to include more Marxist politics in both the Principles and the Platform (I only joined the tendency after that).

I don't think the question in the OP is a valid one, because it's speculative. How can we know if the SP would even be the same organization? Maybe all kinds of opportunists and social democrats have run for office on the party name (something over which we have no control due to state laws)? The real question is, do members of the party right now support that position. The answer is both yes and no. Some of us do, some of us don't. Right now, the revolutionary Marxists have the upper hand in the party and the social democrats are busy tearing each other apart. But in a democratic organization, that can always change.

I think the best answer I can give to your original question is that there are organized tendencies in the party that would fight for workers' councils, workers' rights to sieze their work spaces, etc.

[The Douche]

The SP does not have hegemonic positions. It's a multitendency party, so you have revolutionary Marxists (two different tendencies) as well as social democrats and democratic socialists. The only thing Socialists are required to subscribe to is the Statement of Principles. (http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html) Of course, they have to follow the constitutions of the SPUSA and any state SP of which they are members, as well as any convention resolutions.

chicanorojo and I both belong to the same tendency in the party, the Debs Tendency, which holds to a revolutionary Marxist orientation. They fought to include more Marxist politics in both the Principles and the Platform (I only joined the tendency after that).

I don't think the question in the OP is a valid one, because it's speculative. How can we know if the SP would even be the same organization? Maybe all kinds of opportunists and social democrats have run for office on the party name (something over which we have no control due to state laws)? The real question is, do members of the party right now support that position. The answer is both yes and no. Some of us do, some of us don't. Right now, the revolutionary Marxists have the upper hand in the party and the social democrats are busy tearing each other apart. But in a democratic organization, that can always change.

I think the best answer I can give to your original question is that there are organized tendencies in the party that would fight for workers' councils, workers' rights to sieze their work spaces, etc.

I guess you're saying that if revolutionaries sieze and maintain the leadership of the party that the party will support revolutionary activity?

I don't mean to be smart here or whatever, but, well, duh. I guess the real question was if there is real potential for the SP to be a mass revolutionary party or not. When I was around it (because I was never in it) I felt as though there was a struggle going on. I'll put it like this:

If instead of having the membership the SP does today, what if it had 150 million some odd members/supporters/sympathizers, about half of the US population...and Mr. Moore were to win the election, and based on such numbers, we can say that there are a few governors, mayors, and congress representatives who are also in the SP. But politicaly, it is the SP of the present. (so nothing changed about the SP of this very moment except for the numbers) The SP would essentially push thier platform right? (as I recall (and it may have changed) that is implementing a living wage, removal of US troops from foreign soil, guaranteed housing etc) Which in my mind, are sort of "minimum demands". Then the workers push it forward, would the politics of the SP today support the workers and use the powers of the state to deffend the revolution which is essentially out of thier hands?

*I'm sorry if this is difficult to understand I am having a hard time figuring out how to word my questions. This is not meant to be an attack on the SP, this is really my investigation in considering joining.

[chicanorojo]

If instead of having the membership the SP does today, what if it had 150 million some odd members/supporters/sympathizers, about half of the US population...and Mr. Moore were to win the election, and based on such numbers, we can say that there are a few governors, mayors, and congress representatives who are also in the SP. But politicaly, it is the SP of the present. (so nothing changed about the SP of this very moment except for the numbers) The SP would essentially push thier platform right? [....]to deffend the revolution which is essentially out of thier hands?


You are asking about an unknowable. Can you predict what 150 million people in the future will decide and do? The only I can tell you for certain is that SP2008 campaign is pushing our platform and that a good number of the members gave the yes to Brian Moore and the platform.

[The Douche]

You are asking about an unknowable. Can you predict what 150 million people in the future will decide and do? The only I can tell you for certain is that SP2008 campaign is pushing our platform and that a good number of the members gave the yes to Brian Moore and the platform.

I guess I did not word my previous post very clearly (like I said, I am having a hard time expressing it)

I'm saying, lets assume that 150 million strong SP has the same political leanings as it does right now, and has executive power...in that case, would the SP support, ecourage, and defend a revolution it cannot control? (because the revolution would be independent of, though inspired by the party)

[Die Neue Zeit]

This tactic of building a labour party in the USA is the only viable tactic that will bring the movement forward for now and lay the basis of building the revolutionary party that will lead the struggle against capitalism in the US.

You Grantites should at least consider "entering" either the newly formed "Social-Democratic" Party of America or the in-coma United States Labor Party.


FaRT moved on to their yahoo email group party.

Are the "social-democrats" so organizationally bankrupt??? :lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

There are two kinds of states, a workers state and a bourgeois state.

Do you thing that if the workers actualy control the state the state will have the same policies as a bourgeois state?

Give me a break.


Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba; I've seen the so-called workers state that communism has to give and I'll gladly pass. I love communists, they're good people and the one I'm dating makes a mean chili but if the totalitarian beuracracy of "the Communist Party" and the "Internationale" is what you have planned, it is my moral obligation as an anarchist to fight it.

[chicanorojo]

I guess I did not word my previous post very clearly (like I said, I am having a hard time expressing it)

I'm saying, lets assume that 150 million strong SP has the same political leanings as it does right now, and has executive power...in that case, would the SP support, ecourage, and defend a revolution it cannot control? (because the revolution would be independent of, though inspired by the party)

Again, you are asking from a point of idealism. Who knows what "150 million strong SP" members would decide? When we get to that point, then you can raise that question. Look, regardless of who is elected into the White House, 150 Million socialist voters in the US would be a major revolution.

[JimmyJazz]

Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba; I've seen the so-called workers state that communism has to give and I'll gladly pass. I love communists, they're good people and the one I'm dating makes a mean chili but if the totalitarian beuracracy of "the Communist Party" and the "Internationale" is what you have planned, it is my moral obligation as an anarchist to fight it.

Dude I'm not trying to pick on you but wouldn't you have to turn the other cheek?

It just seems you're not being very Christian going around using the f-word and advocating fighting.

[Plagueround]

Dude I'm not trying to pick on you but wouldn't you have to turn the other cheek?

It just seems you're not being very Christian going around using the f-word and advocating fighting.

Maybe he follows that badass, angry, fighting Wilhem Dafoe Jesus from The Last Temptation of Christ. Or the singing, musical Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, he was pretty cool too.

[chegitz guevara]

I guess I did not word my previous post very clearly (like I said, I am having a hard time expressing it)

I'm saying, lets assume that 150 million strong SP has the same political leanings as it does right now, and has executive power...in that case, would the SP support, ecourage, and defend a revolution it cannot control? (because the revolution would be independent of, though inspired by the party)

Comrade, it's not that you aren't being clear. It's that you're asking us to speculate. The problem with speculation is that it's simple imagination. I could predict in the fictional scenario you created that having won the election, we'd be calling for the workers to arm themselves, the soldiers to arrest their officers, workers to seize the factories, etc. But that's nothing but a dream.

The reality is, the party is sectioned into competing factions (but not so hostile that we can't work together), that the vast majority of the membership isn't active in the least, and that there is a lot of room for people who want to push a revolutionary, proletarian, socialist agenda. The SP cannot tell you what to say or what to think. That is both its greatest defect and its greatest strength. It gives you the ability to fight for exactly what you believe in, but it also means we have to put up with some pretty rotten politics.

To give you as good a question to your original question as I can, there are likely a handful of people who would want to respect bourgeois property rights still in the party, but they are few in number, and getting fewer. They are not terribly vocal in defense of their position either. Most of the active comrades fight for a revolutionary proletarian socialist orientation. I can't give you more than that.

[Revy]

If a revolution occurs, it is not going to be because the SP makes it occur. It is because the people want it to happen. The SP is the vehicle of the revolution, not the other way around (revolution, vehicle for the SP). We are not so egotistical that we think we must control a revolution and direct it. We are fighting for many of the same things that parties like PSL are fighting for. If you want to join the SP, join it and advance the party and the cause. We have orthodox Marxists, Trotskyists, anarchists, and plain old socialists. The social democrats aren't influential and many of them have left because they think there's a Trotskyist conspiracy afoot to make it totalitarian. If the SP were to become counter-revolutionary then there would naturally (and preferably) be a split. We don't need so much speculation, what matters is the here and now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now that the SP-USA is becoming more revolutionary through the departure of class-collaborationists, is it possible to amend the principles so as to explicitly include a recognition of class struggle?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Dude I'm not trying to pick on you but wouldn't you have to turn the other cheek?

It just seems you're not being very Christian going around using the f-word and advocating fighting.
Christians have as much right as anybody else to be allowed to say "fuck", I see no problem with it so long as I use it in the appropriate settings.

As far as fighting, that doesnt always mean violence; that can be sabotage, political organization, telling people why what you're against is bad and how they can stop it, etc.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Or the singing, musical Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, he was pretty cool too.
Godspell was better, it doesnt get the credit it deserves.

[GPDP]

We have orthodox Marxists, Trotskyists, anarchists, and plain old socialists.

what

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Most likely class-strugglist anarchists :)

[Sendo]

Christians have as much right as anybody else to be allowed to say "fuck", I see no problem with it so long as I use it in the appropriate settings.


Appropriate settings?
So is it okay "fuck" when the MPAA priest and minister onlookers say it's okay? As in the non-literal, violent, cursing version "fuck you", but the literal "I like to fuck my girlfriend while I wear stockings and she bites my arms" is not okay?

[Revy]

Appropriate settings?
So is it okay "fuck" when the MPAA priest and minister onlookers say it's okay? As in the non-literal, violent, cursing version "fuck you", but the literal "I like to fuck my girlfriend while I wear stockings and she bites my arms" is not okay?

You can't say "fuck" on TV but you can say "*****". Which is actually considered by many to be sexist. In my opinion, cuss words shouldn't be censored unless they are really offensive (racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc). But we live in a country in which Janet Jackson can show her breast partially nude for like 2 milliseconds and cause a firestorm of controversy. And it was Janet who got in trouble not Justin. :rolleyes:

[The Douche]

My question totally backfired because I was trying to be to specific.

Does the SPUSA support worker's revolution, or does it support a very far left social democracy? It would appear that the party is currently leaning farther towards revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Depends on how you define "far-left social democracy," though. I would think that some in the SPUSA are considering a participatory-democratic revolution of sorts (probably one based on votes only for policies and lots for selecting people).

[chegitz guevara]

My question totally backfired because I was trying to be to specific.

Does the SPUSA support worker's revolution, or does it support a very far left social democracy? It would appear that the party is currently leaning farther towards revolution.

We are, overtly, a revolutionary organization and call for a democratic socialist revolution. We don't define what that would look like, in order to keep both revolutionaries and social democrats in the organization. The party is moving further to the left, in my opinion, and towards a more proletarian orientation.

So the question I would pose to you is, do you want to join a group that already thinks the way you do or would you rather join one that is evolving and help push it towards that point of view? As long as you are not a member of a centralist group (or the capitalist parties), and agree to the Statement of Principles, anyone can join.


what

We used to have an anarchist tendency in the organization, but almost all of them left to go create SDS. We had a person I would call an anarchist elected to the NC, but he later resigned because he didn't like the political positions of people with whom he argued with in the SP.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Appropriate settings?
So is it okay "fuck" when the MPAA priest and minister onlookers say it's okay? As in the non-literal, violent, cursing version "fuck you", but the literal "I like to fuck my girlfriend while I wear stockings and she bites my arms" is not okay?
I mean whenever you thjink it's cool to say it; like I'd say it in frony of my friends but not my grandparents. Whatever floats your boat.

[JimmyJazz]

I mean whenever you thjink it's cool to say it; like I'd say it in frony of my friends but not my grandparents.

This really sounds like bearing false witness.

[chegitz guevara]

Now that the SP-USA is becoming more revolutionary through the departure of class-collaborationists, is it possible to amend the principles so as to explicitly include a recognition of class struggle

That can only be changed at a national convention. I'm arguing both in the National Committee and the membership at large that our 2009 convention should be a constitutional convention and also deal with the platform.

I think we will come out of that convention more democratic and more revolutionary, with a more unified organization, instead of being a disparate collection of locals.