SPUSA's Moore on Fox News

[KurtFF8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfFxjD_tpHw


Certainly seems more like a social democrat than a socialist here.

Here's a more recent interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07Uk_lrip8

[Q]

He is in any case a bad speaker, gets distracted fast and has a fuzzy story to tell.
I wonder how he got to be their presidential candidate.

[Coggeh]

Communism is centralised and authortarian ... :blink:wtf .. when did this happen ?

[The Douche]

Communism is centralised and authortarian ... :blink:wtf .. when did this happen ?

It has been a tactic of the SP to refer to "Communism", when they mean Stalinism. They do this in an effort to make it clear that they are not authoritarians I guess. In their written texts they actually write communism like I did above, big C and quotes.

Brian Moore doesn't seem that radical to me and while I had thought about voting for him this year I'm not going to vote for anybody because he really does seem like he's not in line with my conception of what the SP is/could be.

Hopefully some SP members will pop in.

[chicanorojo]

He is in any case a bad speaker, gets distracted fast and has a fuzzy story to tell.
I wonder how he got to be their presidential candidate.

I wonder how other parties do it. Hmmm. Well. We don't use the system that M-L parties do. We actually have folks get a pre-campaign together, talk to the membership, come to the national convention, make their case, and get this....the membership then votes on who they want! For better or worse, we voted for him.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The SP is a reformist "democratic socialist" organization? What else do you expect?

Their program explicitly states: "Under capitalist and 'Communist' states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under 'Communist' states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers."

They take a "neutral" stance in international conflict, rejecting the need to defend proletarian states (deformed or otherwise) from imperialism.

[The Douche]

The SP is a reformist "democratic socialist" organization? What else do you expect?

Their program explicitly states: "Under capitalist and 'Communist' states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under 'Communist' states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers."

They take a "neutral" stance in international conflict, rejecting the need to defend proletarian states (deformed or otherwise) from imperialism.

I don't agree with this. As I stated earlier the SP means Stalinism when they say "Communism", I'm not saying I agree with that tactic, just that it is what it is.

They are not reformist, they call for the expropriation of workplaces.

Neutral stance on international conflict? How do you mean? You mean they refuse to defend cuba? They're far from the only revolutionary organization to do that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The refuse to defend any proletarian states, just as I said.

They attack bureaucratized proletarian states as being 'just as bad' as the imperialist states, ala Max Shachtman.

Of course they're not alone in that, but it doesn't make their stand any more principled or correct. Whether an idea/outlook/etc. is correct or incorrect is not determined by the number of people who subscribe to it.

And they are efinitely reformist. By their own description they are a "democratic socialist" party. Democratic socialism showed its true colors in the lead up to the First World War. They welcome into their ranks members of the ultra-reformist Committees of Correspondence and the DSA, which is little more than a left auxiliary organization for the Democratic Party.

[KurtFF8]

Whatever your stance on SPUSA, it seems that Moore does a terrible job defending socialism. I remember when he first became the candidate he said something along the lines of "Well I'm new to the whole socialist thing" and you can certainly see this in interviews like the ones I posted.

[Dust Bunnies]

So here is the question of the day, are they better or worse than CPUSA?

[The Douche]

The refuse to defend any proletarian states, just as I said.

They attack bureaucratized proletarian states as being 'just as bad' as the imperialist states, ala Max Shachtman.

Of course they're not alone in that, but it doesn't make their stand any more principled or correct. Whether an idea/outlook/etc. is correct or incorrect is not determined by the number of people who subscribe to it.

And they are efinitely reformist. By their own description they are a "democratic socialist" party. Democratic socialism showed its true colors in the lead up to the First World War. They welcome into their ranks members of the ultra-reformist Committees of Correspondence and the DSA, which is little more than a left auxiliary organization for the Democratic Party.

Ok I'm not going to argue with you about thier opposition to deformed workers states/state capitalist countries etc, its been had plenty of times.

So was Debs' Socialist Party of America also reformist? It was "democratic socialist" and it opposed WW1, I'm sure you know that. And I'm also sure you know the the SP-USA can claim relationship to the party of Debs.

Also, the DSA, and the right wing of the SP is pretty much gone, they have almost all left after the last convention where the revolutionary elements in the party took more power. I don't really want to get heavily into that though because I am a party outsider and the members on this site will be able to speak to it better than me, I sent a message to chegitz about this thread and hopefully chicanorojo will return, because obviously they will be able to defend the party better than I can.


So here is the question of the day, are they better or worse than CPUSA?

The SP openly calls for the working class to sieze the means of production from the capitalists. I think that is a pretty clear answer that the CP is not even anywhere near the same league as the SP.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm actually ashamed by some of the more prominent socialists in our country. I was watching a debate between third party candidates - Moore and the candidate for Socialism and Liberation were on, and I was agreeing more with the Constitutionalist Party on economic matters - a right-wing libertarian front!

[Plagueround]

It's rather embarrassing to seem his arguments get demolished by a fox news reporter.

[chegitz guevara]

The SP is a reformist "democratic socialist" organization? What else do you expect?

Their program explicitly states: "Under capitalist and 'Communist' states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under 'Communist' states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers."

They take a "neutral" stance in international conflict, rejecting the need to defend proletarian states (deformed or otherwise) from imperialism.

Unlike many other organizations, our party is actually controlled by the membership. That means, sometimes our organization has bad politics, but we also have a means to change those bad stances. We have real internal democracy.

I don't think that definition of 'Communist' states is going to survive the next convention, that it will be changed to Stalinist. It's been a long struggle against the social democrats, but that wing of the party is withering, while the revolutionary wings now have half the national leadership.

In the event of an attack by the American Empire on one of the socialist states, the Party would oppose our own country. All of the socialist states are 3rd world countries, so at the very least, we would oppose on anti-imperialist grounds. What would have happened in a conflict between the USSR and the US is hypothetical, and we aren't the same party as back when the USSR still existed.

I would also like to remind you that this democratic socialist organization's leaders were imprisoned, its foreign members expelled from the U.S., and the party organization smashed due to its opposition to WWI. The treachery of German Social Democracy has no reflection on our organization. Our organization also refuses to apply for membership in the wretched Socialist International. That's a one reason why the social democrats in the party are leaving.

Lastly, why we picked Brian Moore. How many socialists have you seen interviewed on the MSM? That's why we picked Brian. Brian can get in the media, he can bring attention to the movement. Maybe he's not the best speaker, and maybe his ideas are a bit fuzzy (but they're getting better), but if he attracts people to the movement, we can educate them. We can't do that if we have a perfect ideologue whom no one ever hears. BTW, he's going to be on the Colbert Report tonight.

[BobKKKindle$]

That means, sometimes our organization has bad politics, but we also have a means to change those bad stances. We have real internal democracy.If your organization has bad political positions on a whole range of issues, and these positions are reflective of what the membership wants the party to fight for, that's a good indication that you have a membership policy which is far too open and you are basically just admitting anyone who wants to join the party instead of trying to ensure that all members have a basic degree of theoretical knowledge and a commitment to revolutionary socialism. The vanguard party is not supposed to contain every section of the working class because the role of the party is to try and raise the consciousness of the workers in preparation for the seizure of power by intervening in struggles and organizations which involve the whole of the working class, and putting forward socialist arguments to show that the problems workers face (for example, increasing food prices, job insecurity) are a direct result of the capitalist system and can only be abolished by overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with an alternative system based on the distribution of goods according to need, not ability to pay. This role can only be fulfilled if the party is limited to the most politically advanced workers as well as those intellectuals who have chosen to reject their class origins and take the side of the workers in their struggles, because a broad membership will result in a platform which contains reformist and even downright reactionary ideas which are not conductive to revolutionary struggle.

This is an important lesson which the SP-USA and many other organizations don't seem able to grasp. Membership policy was one of the issues which led to the split between the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions of the RSDLP in 1903, as the Bolsheviks argued that the vanguard party required a discriminatory membership policy which would allow the party to function as a disciplined organization capable of maintaining a consistently revolutionary program instead of falling prey to the dangers of opportunism. The SP-USA is currently a Menshevik organization and will only be able to enhance its influence if it discards the current membership policy and restricts membership to the vanguard. This does not entail the abolition of party democracy, as the Bolsheviks were also democratic, as evidenced by the large number of different viewpoints which existed within the party even in 1918 when the membership was debating whether the government should sign an immediate peace agreement with Germany.

[Chapaev]

The SPUSA is a right-wing revisionist organization comparable to "Social Democratic" parties in countries like Germany and Sweden. SPUSA and their ilk reject the necessity of revolution and assert that capitalism should be reformed. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The SPUSA denies the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity. They deny the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarization, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions.

The revolutionary working-class movement must conduct a determined struggle against revisionist groups like the SPUSA because revisionism seeks to disarm the working class ideologically and to instill among workers reformist views.

[Revy]

The SPUSA is a right-wing revisionist organization comparable to "Social Democratic" parties in countries like Germany and Sweden. SPUSA and their ilk reject the necessity of revolution and assert that capitalism should be reformed. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The SPUSA denies the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity. They deny the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarization, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions.

The revolutionary working-class movement must conduct a determined struggle against revisionist groups like the SPUSA because revisionism seeks to disarm the working class ideologically and to instill among workers reformist views.

All lies. We support a democratic revolution from below. I'm sorry if we are not Stalinists or whatever you want us to be. The social democrats left the party. It's controlled by revolutionary socialists.

[BobKKKindle$]

The social democrats left the party. It's controlled by revolutionary socialists.

If this is the case, then why does the SP-USA website denounce communism as an "authoritarian" social system, even though this is obviously not true, as anyone with a basic knowledge of what communism is supposed to be can attest? The website is also very unclear on the means by which socialism can be achieved - the party places emphasis on the importance of working through the electoral system and implementing socialist ideas such as public ownership of major enterprises on a local scale to attract more people to socialism, but there is no mention of revolutionary struggle and the overthrow of the bourgeois state, which is ultimately the only way to abolish capitalism and eliminate the division of society into classes. The party is opportunist.

[Revy]

Brian Moore is not a social democrat. By today's definition, a social democrat is someone who supports progressive capitalism. Brian Moore opposes capitalism. His use of the word communism may have been in bad taste, but it was in reference to Stalinism. Most people don't know what Stalinism is - it could be that he wanted to make sense to people.

We are opposed to capitalism. I don't know how many times I can say that. Our use of electoral campaigns is mainly for agitation, and to increase people's involvement in the socialist movement. So it's debatable whether the party is dominated by "reformists", I would say that it isn't.

The SPUSA website says "Communism" with quotes. Words are often put in quotes to question whether something is actually the case. If they actually thought these authoritarian states were communist, they would not have used the quotes. Anyway, as chegitz said, by the next Convention (2009) the wording will most likely be changed.

There are so many so-called "communist" parties/groups (see I used the quotes) in the USA today that will support capitalists, like Nader, McKinney, or even the Democrats (the "Communist" Party USA), but somehow the Socialist Party USA is somehow the right-wing party. Give me a break.

[The Douche]

The SPUSA is a right-wing revisionist organization comparable to "Social Democratic" parties in countries like Germany and Sweden. SPUSA and their ilk reject the necessity of revolution and assert that capitalism should be reformed. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The SPUSA denies the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity. They deny the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarization, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions.

The revolutionary working-class movement must conduct a determined struggle against revisionist groups like the SPUSA because revisionism seeks to disarm the working class ideologically and to instill among workers reformist views.

These are baseless lies!

I challenge you to back these up with statements made by the SP! As I have stated twice already in this discussion, the SP calls for the workers to expropriate the means of production. With such politics how can it be claimed that the SP is "social democratic"? Has it been social democratic in the past? Yes. Are there still social democratic elements in the party? Yes. Is the party moving in a more revolutionary direction? Yes. Do the social democrats control the party? No, and they are leaving at a rapid rate.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This does not entail the abolition of party democracy, as the Bolsheviks were also democratic, as evidenced by the large number of different viewpoints which existed within the party even in 1918 when the membership was debating whether the government should sign an immediate peace agreement with Germany.

The Bolsheviks could be taken with more credibility if they hadn't outright banned all political opposition. That was such a reactionary action.

[BobKKKindle$]

We are opposed to capitalism. I don't know how many times I can say thatBernstein also claimed that he was opposed to capitalism, but he insisted that socialism could be introduced by parliamentary means alone without the need for social revolution directed against the bourgeois state. Rosa Luxemburg rightly pointed out in 'Reform or Revolution' that despite Bernstein's alleged support for socialism as a way of organizing society, his rejection of social revolution as a means of overturning capitalism was synonymous with rejecting socialism itself, because the idea that the bourgeoisie will be willing to peacefully give up their property and hand control over to the workers without any form of struggle is an illusion, and the development of capitalism has made the system more, not less, unstable, creating more opportunities for social revolution.These comments are also applicable to the SP-USA because the program does not contain a single mention of revolution, and the emphasis on parliamentary action suggests that the party's political activity is limited to fighting for gradual reforms within the framework of the existing system, not organizing the workers for the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus.


The Bolsheviks could be taken with more credibility if they hadn't outright banned all political opposition. That was such a reactionary action. This is perhaps a separate issue for discussion, but the Bolsheviks did not "ban" all political opposition. Internal party democracy continued until the ban on factions at the 10th party congress, and even the ban was intended only as a temporary measure to maintain party discipline during the period of economic recovery after the chaotic civil war, which had caused the disintegration of the working class as the social base of the revolution and the deaths of many loyal communists who had served the party for the duration of its existence. Concerning external democracy, the Bolsheviks had originally intended to govern as part of a coalition with the left wing of the SRs, as the only forces capable of leading the Russian proletariat against the threat of reaction, but they were later forced to govern alone after the SRs left the coalition in protest against Lenin's decision to sign an immediate peace treaty with Germany regardless of the territorial losses, on the basis that the spread of the revolution or Germany's impending military defeat would eventually allow the workers to reclaim the territory they had lost. Subsequent events such as the assassination attempt on Lenin led the Bolsheviks to limit political freedom to maintain the strength of the government and prevent the workers state from being overthrown. It is easy to judge these events from a modern perspective and criticize the Bolsheviks for breaking what you see as inalienable rights, but a more sensible approach is to try and appreciate the conditions the Bolsheviks faced, especially the fact that they were trying to do something which had never been attempted before in history and so were obviously liable to mistakes which they could not have anticipated, and then try and decide whether their actions were justified in light of these conditions.

[Mindtoaster]

The SPUSA is a right-wing revisionist organization comparable to "Social Democratic" parties in countries like Germany and Sweden. SPUSA and their ilk reject the necessity of revolution and assert that capitalism should be reformed. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The SPUSA denies the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity. They deny the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarization, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions.

The revolutionary working-class movement must conduct a determined struggle against revisionist groups like the SPUSA because revisionism seeks to disarm the working class ideologically and to instill among workers reformist views.


Wow, nice evidence. I'll take the word of chegitz, someone running for senate on the party ticket, over this baseless rhetoric.

Please consider actually backing up your statements.

From what I have read the SPUSA is the most realistic, democratic, un-sectarian, down to Earth socialist party in the United States. They have a solid constitution and a realistic outlook on their own party and what they need to do to appeal to the working class.

[The Douche]

These comments are also applicable to the SP-USA because the program does not contain a single mention of revolution, and the emphasis on parliamentary action suggests that the party's political activity is limited to fighting for gradual reforms within the framework of the existing system, not organizing the workers for the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus.

This is incorrect. Four times now, the SP calls for the working class to expropriate the means of production. Four times I have said that in this thread, that statement is not hidden, it is in thier platform in the labor section.

[BobKKKindle$]

A single reference to "expropriation" as the sixth point on a list of demands is not the same as having a commitment to the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means. Social revolution involves the smashing of the institutions which comprise the bourgeois state, including parliaments and the armed bodies of men which maintain and exercise the power of the state under the capitalist system, and the replacement of these institutions with a workers militia and new democratic system of government based on councils located in individual workplaces. The SP-USA platform contains no mention of this essential issue - the question of which class exercises state power, and how - and so it is wrong to describe this party as revolutionary.

[KurtFF8]

Brian Moore is not a social democrat. By today's definition, a social democrat is someone who supports progressive capitalism. Brian Moore opposes capitalism.

One of the first things he said in the first video I posted was "we embrace the bailout now that it's here". He also thinks that the US should just start nationalizing the firms. Sounds like reformism to me.

Moore may not fully be a social democrat but he sure seems to be confusing some social democratic stances with socialist stances.

[The Douche]

A single reference to "expropriation" as the sixth point on a list of demands is not the same as having a commitment to the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means. Social revolution involves the smashing of the institutions which comprise the bourgeois state, including parliaments and the armed bodies of men which maintain and exercise the power of the state under the capitalist system, and the replacement of these institutions with a workers militia and new democratic system of government based on councils located in individual workplaces. The SP-USA platform contains no mention of this essential issue - the question of which class exercises state power, and how - and so it is wrong to describe this party as revolutionary.

Please show me where, in an electoral platform the SWP says all those exact words.

The politics of a party and their platform for election are different. But there are still plenty of statements made in the paltform that allude to social revolution:


We support the right of soldiers to form unions to represent their views and interests.

We call for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention.

We oppose representation based on anything other than population.

We call for the expansion of community release programs and other alternatives to prisons, and for a moratorium on new prison construction.

We call for the ultimate replacement of the police with community residents trained in conflict resolution who live in and serve the community under community control.

We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic.

All of these are revolutionary demands included within the minimum demands set forth by the party. The party is not designed to be a vanguard, it is a mass party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A single reference to "expropriation" as the sixth point on a list of demands is not the same as having a commitment to the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means. Social revolution involves the smashing of the institutions which comprise the bourgeois state, including parliaments and the armed bodies of men which maintain and exercise the power of the state under the capitalist system, and the replacement of these institutions with a workers militia and new democratic system of government based on councils located in individual workplaces. The SP-USA platform contains no mention of this essential issue - the question of which class exercises state power, and how - and so it is wrong to describe this party as revolutionary.

Sorry Bob, but you don't know squat about what social revolution is. What you are talking about is political revolution, which isn't the same thing.

[BobKKKindle$]

All of these are revolutionary demands included within the minimum demands set forth by the party. The party is not designed to be a vanguard, it is a mass party.

The SPD was also designed to be a "mass party" because it involved the whole of the working class, not just the most advanced section, and consequently the SPD exhibited a lack of theoretical discipline, and was dominated by a bureaucratic stratum which presided over the rest of the membership and, when faced with an opportunity for revolution in 1918 after the overthrow of the Kaiser, took active measures to restrain the growing radicalism of the working class and allow the capitaist system to continue functioning.

I don't have time to respond to you other points now, as I'm going to bed shortly.


Sorry Bob, but you don't know squat about what social revolution is. What you are talking about is political revolution, which isn't the same thing.

I don't think you have the right to accuse anyone of not knowing "squat" because you have personally demonstrated on several occassions that you have a poor knowledge of marxist economics and political analysis, most notably in the recent theory thread where you asserted that the letter C stands for "capital", even though C actually stands for "commodity" and the formula of commodity circulation is one of the most basic points Marx makes in Capital. You waste our time with meaningless posts which restate arguments which have already been succinctly made, in the most convoluted way possible.

I was not suggesting that the replacement of the bourgeois state is the only component of a socialist revolution, I was actually responding to a lack of specific analysis on the question of state power by the SP-USA. However, it is wrong to try and make a clear distinction between "political" and "social" revolution because the socialist revolution involves the extension of conscious political control to the means of production (changes in the organisation/ownership of which comprise transformations of the relations of production and hence a social revolution) by introducing economic planning coordinated through democratic councils, such as the soviets which emerged following the February revoution in Russia. This process breaks down the false division of economics and politics.

[bretty]

Whatever your stance on SPUSA, it seems that Moore does a terrible job defending socialism. I remember when he first became the candidate he said something along the lines of "Well I'm new to the whole socialist thing" and you can certainly see this in interviews like the ones I posted.

I agree.. I'm sure one of the reasons the interviewer enjoys talking to him is because he's relatively a passive speaker, and intellectual socialists would probably rip the journalists arguments to shreds. I'm merely a student and I could of come up with better answers to those questions.

[Revy]

A single reference to "expropriation" as the sixth point on a list of demands is not the same as having a commitment to the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means. Social revolution involves the smashing of the institutions which comprise the bourgeois state, including parliaments and the armed bodies of men which maintain and exercise the power of the state under the capitalist system, and the replacement of these institutions with a workers militia and new democratic system of government based on councils located in individual workplaces. The SP-USA platform contains no mention of this essential issue - the question of which class exercises state power, and how - and so it is wrong to describe this party as revolutionary.

The Socialist Party USA supports revolution. Stop with the BS. A simple look at our website will show you that we support a "democratic revolution from below".

[Revy]

Bobkindles, I see you are a member of the SWP. The SWP urged support for the Labour Party in 1997 based on some weird logic. I say the lefter-than-thou posturing needs to stop.:thumbup1:

[Holden Caulfield]

based on some weird logic
pissy opportunism, to ride of the coat tails of any 'left' movement...

[Oneironaut]

I was pleased to see a "socialist" on television... particularly fox news. However, Moore does not know his shit. Many of us here would have answered the journalists questions in a way that actually represents our point of view. Moore said nothing along the lines of economic conditions that would explain why socialism in the US would be tremendously successful and very distinct from anything the world has ever seen and why Cuba doesn't depend on capitalism but the goods produced in capitalist countries. It seems like Moore just repeats workers' democracy without explaining what it actually entails and how it will be radically democratic. Not to mention that Moore didn't call himself socialist until the capitalists told him he was. Using this logic, Obama could say right now that in fact he is a socialist when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

On another note to the SPUSA members:
I feel like your party platform is workable but of course is lacking in places. However, the SPUSA is the best bet for US workers right now. I've heard several mentions of your next convention in 09'? If this is the case, where is it going to be held? I would be interested in bringing myself and a handful of my union members to it. Would it be necessary to become party members first to participate in the convention or can we simply come and put in our 2 cents?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's something the SPUSA could consider for an economically interventionist platform:

There was talk in the 1970s about "pension fund socialism," since today two-thirds of corporate equity in the U$ is owned by pension funds. Here in Canada we sorta have privatized SS since Prime Minister Pearson long back, but it comes in the form of the Canada Pension Plan.

In the Scandinavian countries, there are state-run energy pension investment funds.

Your Republicans want to privatize SS (based on shitty T-bills), but ONLY on the basis of 401Ks or whatever. They don't want something like the CPP above, because it involves government-run pension ownership.



Here we go:

1) Establish an America Pension Plan, in which employees contribute and in which employers must match pension plan contributions.
2) Have all privately owned "natural monopolies," mature energy companies, etc. come under the direct ownership of this pension plan.



For those in the know, this is a modern spin on Trotsky's demand for expropriating the commanding heights.

[The Douche]

I was pleased to see a "socialist" on television... particularly fox news. However, Moore does not know his shit. Many of us here would have answered the journalists questions in a way that actually represents our point of view. Moore said nothing along the lines of economic conditions that would explain why socialism in the US would be tremendously successful and very distinct from anything the world has ever seen and why Cuba doesn't depend on capitalism but the goods produced in capitalist countries. It seems like Moore just repeats workers' democracy without explaining what it actually entails and how it will be radically democratic. Not to mention that Moore didn't call himself socialist until the capitalists told him he was. Using this logic, Obama could say right now that in fact he is a socialist when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

On another note to the SPUSA members:
I feel like your party platform is workable but of course is lacking in places. However, the SPUSA is the best bet for US workers right now. I've heard several mentions of your next convention in 09'? If this is the case, where is it going to be held? I would be interested in bringing myself and a handful of my union members to it. Would it be necessary to become party members first to participate in the convention or can we simply come and put in our 2 cents?

I believe the convention itself is open to the public but the floor is only open to party members.

[JimmyJazz]

God that was awful. That Fox host was pitching 10mph softballs to him and he still couldn't connect. And I gotta admit I'm unimpressed with the very idea of a socialist going on Fox.

I still think the SPUSA is a good protest vote where they appear on the ballot. Their platform (http://www.sp-usa.org/platform/) is relatively solid. If one takes it that voting in national elections is a good idea to start with, they're a potentially better option than the Greens.


I don't think that definition of 'Communist' states is going to survive the next convention, that it will be changed to Stalinist. It's been a long struggle against the social democrats, but that wing of the party is withering, while the revolutionary wings now have half the national leadership.

[not replying directly to chegitz, just using his comment to make a point]

It seems to me that this fact obliterates any right to claim a continuity from Debs to the present day party.



By their own description they are a "democratic socialist" party. Democratic socialism showed its true colors in the lead up to the First World War.

I'm not disagreeing with all your criticisms of the SPUSA, but you're mistaken to equate democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) (wiki) with social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) (wiki). The betrayal at the end of the 2nd International was mostly by people calling themselves "social democrats", from everything I've heard.

I know the use of the terms isn't 100% consistent through history; no term ever is. For instance, Lenin did call himself a "social democrat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/sep/28.htm)" when the Bolsheviks were still part of the RSDLP.

But by and large, it seems to me that this essay, which says that social democracy has been reformist and democratic socialism is revolutionary, is accurate: "Social Democracy Versus Revolutionary Democratic Socialism (http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n3_sdvr.html)" by J. David Edelstein

[black magick hustla]

The difference of names is due to historical roots, but the politics of both tendencies are almost equal. Social democracy emerged in the late 19th century, and in a sense, the first marxist organizations were "social democratic" and the the people who called themselves communist later their left wing. The difference became only historically significant with the emergence of internationalist opposition to war, led by the left wings versus the patriotic politics of the center and right wings of these organizations. Democratic Socialism differs from social democracy in the sense that it comes from the trotskyist tradition, not in the sense that all trotskyists are "democratic socialists", but in the sense that democratic socialism was product of splits from the fourth international. However, I know plenty of democratic socialists (people who latch themselves to the DSA) and nobody, even the less "opportunistic" ones, call for explicit social revolution.

[JimmyJazz]

The difference of names is due to historical roots, but the politics of both tendencies are almost equal. Social democracy emerged in the late 19th century, and in a sense, the first marxist organizations were "social democratic" and the the people who called themselves communist later their left wing. The difference became only historically significant with the emergence of internationalist opposition to war, led by the left wings versus the patriotic politics of the center and right wings of these organizations. Democratic Socialism differs from social democracy in the sense that it comes from the trotskyist tradition, not in the sense that all trotskyists are "democratic socialists", but in the sense that democratic socialism was product of splits from the fourth international. However, I know plenty of democratic socialists (people who latch themselves to the DSA) and nobody, even the less "opportunistic" ones, call for explicit social revolution.

Hmm. I was not aware of that. I always thought "democratic socialism" was a pretty good and succinct way to make it clear that I favor popular political control alongside economic democracy. (Which is necessary when you're talking to the average person, who assumes socialism = authoritarian Soviet model, and isn't necessarily going to sit there while you explain the nuances of your position).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Democratic socialism" itself is too broad, Jimmy. Hal Draper and the guy you cited mentioned revolutionary-democratic socialism. Besides my terminology, I would also recommend revolutionary social democracy for starters - you save two syllables and go back to Lenin's terminology during WWI specifically (just before the adoption of "Communist").

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The difference of names is due to historical roots, but the politics of both tendencies are almost equal.

Exactly.


Democratic Socialism differs from social democracy in the sense that it comes from the trotskyist tradition, not in the sense that all trotskyists are "democratic socialists", but in the sense that democratic socialism was product of splits from the fourth international.

Not sure what you're talking about here..

"Democratic socialists" have been around for quite a while... certainly before the formation of the Fourth International.

Debs and De Leon are often pointed to as "early democratic socialists," as are the Socialist League and Independent Labour Party which existed in the late 1800's in England.

The DSA origin's lie in the Socialist Party of America (which the SPUSA also came out of).

Anyway, I reject that there is a qualitative difference at the present time between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But by and large, it seems to me that this essay, which says that social democracy has been reformist and democratic socialism is revolutionary, is accurate: "Social Democracy Versus Revolutionary Democratic Socialism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n3_sdvr.html)" by J. David Edelstein"Democratic socialism" is far from revolutionary. You won't hear "democratic socialists" speak of the need for the working class to smash the capitalist state through revolution.

"Revolutionary-democratic socialism" is a term coined by the Shachtmanite Hal Draper, as mentioned above.

[black magick hustla]

Exactly.



Not sure what you're talking about here..

"Democratic socialists" have been around for quite a while... certainly before the formation of the Fourth International.

Debs and De Leon are often pointed to as "early democratic socialists," as are the Socialist League and Independent Labour Party which existed in the late 1800's in England.

The DSA origin's lie in the Socialist Party of America (which the SPUSA also came out of).

Anyway, I reject that there is a qualitative difference at the present time between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism."

but isnt this laber applied by later people to them? idk, i dont think debs was a "democratic socialist", he was an internationalist socialist who was in the left wing of the SPUSA (like Reed) and supported the russian revolution. The DSA did emerge from splits of the SPUSA, but the main theoretical influence came from Michael Harrington, was a member of the sachmanite circle, and if you read american democratic socialist literature atleast, they take the traditional sachmanite take on the nature of eastern european states. So in a sense, the DSA was not split of "fourth international", but the politics they have are. I always saw modern democratic socialism owing more to "renegade"trotskysts"than earlier historical tendencies.

[JimmyJazz]

@JR: Sounds good, but why don't you use either of those labels for yourself? (sorry to derail the thread this badly).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ They're still too long ("revolutionary" takes up SIX syllables already). ;)

[Revy]

When the SPUSA says "democratic socialist" it actually MEANS that exactly. It doesn't mean social democracy, though that's often what it's used to mean. Many in the party identify as revolutionary. Personally, the term "democratic socialist" is not for me because of its connotations. as you can see, I identify as a "revolutionary socialist". I think revolutionary democratic socialist is too long for me, and I think we should point out that socialism is democratic by its own nature, and doesn't need a "democratic" adjective.

[mikelepore]

The first interview began with Neil Cavuto alleging that the government bailing out the rich bankers takes us in the direction of "socialism", and Brian Moore not only failed to correct the error but actually made the same implication himself. Caramba!

[Revy]

For the bailout question, the SPUSA opposed the bailout from the start. In the Colbert Report interview just hours ago, Brian Moore stated his opposition to the bailout as a capitalist bailout for the wealthy. What he said in the Fox interview, he was trying to articulate himself with a hyper host with no respect for him.

[#FF0000]

For the bailout question, the SPUSA opposed the bailout from the start. In the Colbert Report interview just hours ago, Brian Moore stated his opposition to the bailout as a capitalist bailout for the wealthy. What he said in the Fox interview, he was trying to articulate himself with a hyper host with no respect for him.

He also managed to choke on a question about whether or not the government would force people to share their possessions. He's a joke.

[GPDP]

I'm of the type that stops watching videos the moment they get embarassing.

Suffice it to say I refuse to even open it.

[Q]

If your organization has bad political positions on a whole range of issues, and these positions are reflective of what the membership wants the party to fight for, that's a good indication that you have a membership policy which is far too open and you are basically just admitting anyone who wants to join the party instead of trying to ensure that all members have a basic degree of theoretical knowledge and a commitment to revolutionary socialism. The vanguard party is not supposed to contain every section of the working class because the role of the party is to try and raise the consciousness of the workers in preparation for the seizure of power by intervening in struggles and organizations which involve the whole of the working class, and putting forward socialist arguments to show that the problems workers face (for example, increasing food prices, job insecurity) are a direct result of the capitalist system and can only be abolished by overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with an alternative system based on the distribution of goods according to need, not ability to pay. This role can only be fulfilled if the party is limited to the most politically advanced workers as well as those intellectuals who have chosen to reject their class origins and take the side of the workers in their struggles, because a broad membership will result in a platform which contains reformist and even downright reactionary ideas which are not conductive to revolutionary struggle.

This is an important lesson which the SP-USA and many other organizations don't seem able to grasp. Membership policy was one of the issues which led to the split between the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions of the RSDLP in 1903, as the Bolsheviks argued that the vanguard party required a discriminatory membership policy which would allow the party to function as a disciplined organization capable of maintaining a consistently revolutionary program instead of falling prey to the dangers of opportunism. The SP-USA is currently a Menshevik organization and will only be able to enhance its influence if it discards the current membership policy and restricts membership to the vanguard. This does not entail the abolition of party democracy, as the Bolsheviks were also democratic, as evidenced by the large number of different viewpoints which existed within the party even in 1918 when the membership was debating whether the government should sign an immediate peace agreement with Germany.
While I completely agree with your post on the need for discriminatory membership to have a vanguard of militant and political aware members, I do find it ironic that this comes from a member of an organisation that has lowered its program significantly to attract more members to it and an organisation that is widely known for its opportunism itself.

[BobKKKindle$]

Many in the party identify as revolutionaryMany people in the Labour Party (UK) identify as revolutionary or have done so in the past, including the whole of the IMT and even some sections of the Fabian Society, but Labour is still a reformist organization because the majority of the membership are not committed to revolutionary ideas and instead limit their activity to fighting for short-term reforms which serve no purpose except to legitimize the existing parliamentary system and strengthen the Labour Party as the traditional organization of the working class, despite the party's persistent betrayals.

You admitted that the SP-USA was designed to be a mass party. In a non-revolutionary period a mass party will always be reformist to the extent that it reflects the ideas which are most prevalent amongst the working class, for the simple reason that only a small group of workers (otherwise known as the vanguard) will ever be consciously revolutionary whereas the majority will still be influenced by the illusion of democracy under capitalism and will reject any prospect of revolutionary struggle. The vanguard party, the only effective means of raising the consciousness of the workers, is not a mass party during a non-revolutionary period, but contains only the most conscious section of the workers. The vanguard party only becomes a mass party when large groups of workers have already been won over to socialism, and in the process of becoming a mass party it does not lose its status as the vanguard party, because the size of the vanguard has expanded to include a much larger section, maybe even a majority, of the working class. This is exactly what happened in Russia, in the months preceding the October Revolution in 1917.


The SWP urged support for the Labour Party in 1997 based on some weird logic.There was no "weird" logic involved. The SWP supported voting for Labour partly because there was no coherent alternative (in accordance with the principle "socialist when we can, Labour when we must") but also because Labour coming to power and then failing to overturn the anti-worker legislation of the Thatcher era or achieve any concrete improvements in the position of the working class would allow the workers to realize that Labour does not represent their interests and so there is a need to begin building a new organization which reflects the interests of the workers as a class, including the overthrow of capitalism, as well as other demands such as the abolition of border controls and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

[bretty]

I hate smarmy journalists. They should let someone loose on his ass. I'd like to hear a discussion that isn't decided on who can switch from one topic to the next quickest and add in little one liners.

[Revy]

Many people in the Labour Party (UK) identify as revolutionary or have done so in the past, including the whole of the IMT and even some sections of the Fabian Society, but Labour is still a reformist organization because the majority of the membership are not committed to revolutionary ideas and instead limit their activity to fighting for short-term reforms which serve no purpose except to legitimize the existing parliamentary system and strengthen the Labour Party as the traditional organization of the working class, despite the party's persistent betrayals.

You admitted that the SP-USA was designed to be a mass party. In a non-revolutionary period a mass party will always be reformist to the extent that it reflects the ideas which are most prevalent amongst the working class, for the simple reason that only a small group of workers (otherwise known as the vanguard) will ever be consciously revolutionary whereas the majority will still be influenced by the illusion of democracy under capitalism and will reject any prospect of revolutionary struggle. The vanguard party, the only effective means of raising the consciousness of the workers, is not a mass party during a non-revolutionary period, but contains only the most conscious section of the workers. The vanguard party only becomes a mass party when large groups of workers have already been won over to socialism, and in the process of becoming a mass party it does not lose its status as the vanguard party, because the size of the vanguard has expanded to include a much larger section, maybe even a majority, of the working class. This is exactly what happened in Russia, in the months preceding the October Revolution in 1917.

There was no "weird" logic involved. The SWP supported voting for Labour partly because there was no coherent alternative (in accordance with the principle "socialist when we can, Labour when we must") but also because Labour coming to power and then failing to overturn the anti-worker legislation of the Thatcher era or achieve any concrete improvements in the position of the working class would allow the workers to realize that Labour does not represent their interests and so there is a need to begin building a new organization which reflects the interests of the workers as a class, including the overthrow of capitalism, as well as other demands such as the abolition of border controls and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Yeah, because vanguard parties have a record of becoming mass parties.

Oh wait, how many small parties are there now that believe they are the vanguard? I bet combined they're a mass party, but unfortunately they'll never resolve whatever differences caused them to divide in the first place.

You're committed to your own vision of the party. But you place that to higher importance than the cause of socialism. Your view of anyone but an elite of intellectuals, being too ignorant to be involved in a party is thoroughly undemocratic.

Wasn't the SWP in the UK founded by Tony Cliff? And yet this is the current state of the party...

[Revy]

This is what Lenin said about the Bolshevik Party:

“Young Russian workers ... now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in Russia,” May 1914.

I got that from one of Tony Cliff's writings.

[BobKKKindle$]

You're committed to your own vision of the party. But you place that to higher importance than the cause of socialismThis is Lenin's vision of the party, who led the only party to have ever overthrown capitalism and created a workers state in the whole of human history, which suggests that his vision must be of some value, unless you have a better vision to offer. I am not elevating this vision to a position of higher importance than socialism, because these issues are inextricably linked - the form of party organization we adopt under capitalism determines whether the overthrow of capitalism is a realistic prospect, as a party which includes every section of the working class instead of solely the most advanced section, and limits its activity to electoral work, will never be able to overthrow capitalism and will always be reduced to an appendage of the bourgeois political apparatus.


Yeah, because vanguard parties have a record of becoming mass parties. There is an entire section of Cliff's biography of Lenin entitled "The Bolshevik Party Becomes a Mass Party" available here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm)


“Young Russian workers ... now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in Russia,” May 1914.What are you actually trying to prove? Lenin's comment does not in any way disprove the point I have been putting forward for the whole of this discussion, as the workers he is referring to were the most militant and politically advanced section of the working class (otherwise known as the vanguard) and that is why they became members of the Bolshevik Party, as a party formed to organize the industrial vanguard into a disciplined and coherent revolutionary organization capable of raising the consciousness of the workers and taking the leading role in the struggle against the Tsarist state and the forces of reaction. Consider this quotation:

"The party is where a majority of the class-conscious worker Marxists who take an active part in political life are to be found”

Lenin, Collected Works, vol.19, p.444

At no point did Lenin try to create a party which contained the whole of the working class, including those workers who hold reactionary ideas, as this would comprise the role of the vanguard party, and the party would have ceased to be a vanguard party because it would not have been limited to the vanguard. I never suggested that the vanguard is synonymous with a group of intellectuals who are not part of the production process, as although intellectuals who are opposed to capitalism should be able to join the party, the party should always try to maintain strong links with the working class by developing a network of party militants in workplaces, who can take an active role in putting forward socialist ideas and combating the ideology of the bourgeoisie, when workers are debating whether they should go on strike or take any other form of action. This is how the Bolsheviks operated, and this is how the SWP operates today, as the vast majority of our members, with the exception of the student section, are workers.

[The Douche]

I don't really like Brian Moore, so I'm not going to defend what he said/says or does. But I do like the SP and the direction they are headed in, though I feel that they ought to clean up some of their language (like the whole "Communism" issue, and the "democratic socialism").

The democratic socialism debate is silly, the SP uses language that makes things clear to the American worker. The average American believes that socialism means stalin or hitler, and usually thinks "its a good idea on paper, but the people at the top get to greedy" so when you preceed socialism with democratic then they at least get interested by it. I'm not saying tactics like that are the best choice (reaffirming negative stereotypes of communism etc) but it does have a reason.

For those who are saying the SP is a reformist organization with no interest in revolution, I challenge you to discuss the party's platform, which contains clearly revolutionary planks, and not your preconcieved ideas about what the party is.

[KurtFF8]

I'm not a huge fan of Moore either, but as was pointed out, he has been able to get some attention in the media recently, here's his schedule as per the SPUSA site:


Upcoming Events:
10/28: 5:00 pm - Brian will be interviewed by Dr. Bob Fitrakis on his WVKO 1580 show, Fight Back! www.wvko1580.com (http://www.wvko1580.com/)
10/28: 11:30 pm - Brian will be interviewed on The Colbert Report with host Stephen Colbert. on Comedy Central.
10/30: 7:00pm – 8:30 pm - Brian will speak at Sacred Grounds Coffeehouse (http://www.sacredgroundstampa.com/) 4819 East Busch Blvd. Tampa, FL
10/31: 8:00 am: Brian will be interviewed Brian will be a a guest on the C-Span show "Washington Journal.
11/03: 6:05pm- Brian will be interviewed on the Dave Glover Show 97.1 FM St Louis, MO www.971talk.com (http://www.971talk.com/)

I didn't catch the Colbert Report last night, but a friend of mine told me about it

Edit: the problem however: He isn't doing a good job at letting people know what socialism really is. As was pointed out, he didn't do the best job on Fox at all, and maybe even many of us could have done much better.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not a huge fan of Moore either, but as was pointed out, he has been able to get some attention in the media recently, here's his schedule as per the SPUSA site:It is precisely because Moore is not a revolutionary that he is being allowed to speak on a bourgeois news network. If the SP-USA was actually committed to revolutionary struggle against the bourgeois state and the party congress elected someone who had a decent knowledge of what communists actually stand for instead of Moore, who is seemingly incapable of taking a firm stand on anything, or answering any criticism with an effective response, they would never be allowed to have an interview or any kind of event which could give them publicity, because the bourgeois media would obviously not want people to be exposed to revolutionary ideas. This is why the PSL has been excluded from the media, whereas the SP-USA has not.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, the RCP has appeared in fox news like a bazillion times.

[Revy]

It is precisely because Moore is not a revolutionary that he is being allowed to speak on a bourgeois news network. If the SP-USA was actually committed to revolutionary struggle against the bourgeois state and the party congress elected someone who had a decent knowledge of what communists actually stand for instead of Moore, who is seemingly incapable of taking a firm stand on anything, or answering any criticism with an effective response, they would never be allowed to have an interview or any kind of event which could give them publicity, because the bourgeois media would obviously not want people to be exposed to revolutionary ideas. This is why the PSL has been excluded from the media, whereas the SP-USA has not.

Just because he's in the media he's not revolutionary? So socialists must be completely avoidant of the media in order to be legit? How will our message EVER get out?

Just because Gloria La Riva has not been able to get as many interviews does not mean that Brian Moore is somehow the patsy of the elite. I'm sure La Riva has had some interviews.

[Revy]

Actually, the RCP has appeared in fox news like a bazillion times.

Excellent point. Fox News actually likes to have all kinds of people on there. I guess because they view it as entertainment. But Brian Moore has been excluded from CNN, MSNBC, and other major news networks.

[GPDP]

I believe it was Chomsky that said the most right-wing and reactionary sections of the media are actually the most likely to give coverage to the left, if only to ridicule them, or as stancel said, for entertainment, whereas the more moderate elements are more likely to ignore us altogether.

[Die Neue Zeit]

At no point did Lenin try to create a party which contained the whole of the working class, including those workers who hold reactionary ideas, as this would comprise the role of the vanguard party, and the party would have ceased to be a vanguard party because it would not have been limited to the vanguard. I never suggested that the vanguard is synonymous with a group of intellectuals who are not part of the production process, as although intellectuals who are opposed to capitalism should be able to join the party, the party should always try to maintain strong links with the working class by developing a network of party militants in workplaces, who can take an active role in putting forward socialist ideas and combating the ideology of the bourgeoisie, when workers are debating whether they should go on strike or take any other form of action. This is how the Bolsheviks operated, and this is how the SWP operates today, as the vast majority of our members, with the exception of the student section, are workers.

"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)

[BobKKKindle$]

Taking a quote from the author of a highly contentious book does not disprove my argument. Although the SPD does have important lessons to teach the socialist movement, most notably the party's success in cultivating links with the workers in the form of social clubs, schools, and other institutions, the SPD took a vacillating stance after the outbreak of the war in 1914 with some deputies voting in favour of war credits thereby allowing the German bourgeoisie to conduct a war of territorial expansion against the rest of Europe at the expense of ordinary workers. The same party eventually betrayed the workers when the opportunity for social revolution presented itself in 1918 by trying to control popular unrest and refusing to arm the working class. This behaviour was not the result of chance and the change in the party's position was not sudden, it was a reflection of the fact that the party contained large numbers of workers who continued to hold reactionary ideas despite the efforts of the militant vanguard (represented by Rosa Luxemburg, who eventually chose to split from the party and form her own revolutionary organisaion, such was her disgust) to prepare the workers for the seizure of power. The call for the "defence of the fatherland" showed that the party had already broken with the most basic elements of marxism and was simply a tool of the bourgeoisie, used to restrain the workers when they tried to challenge the capitalist system and so maintain social cohesion. Or, as Luxemburg put it:

"Never before in the history of class struggles, since there have been political parties, has there been a party that, in this way, after fifty years of uninterrupted growth, after achieving a first-rate position of power, after assembling millions around it, has so completely and ignominiously abdicated as a political force within twenty-four hours, as Social Democracy has done.”

[Die Neue Zeit]

Taking a quote from the author of a highly contentious book does not disprove my argument.

So you DID read the book as provided on Google Books! :thumbup: :cool:


This behaviour was not the result of chance and the change in the party's position was not sudden, it was a reflection of the fact that the party contained large numbers of workers who continued to hold reactionary ideas despite the efforts of the militant vanguard (represented by Rosa Luxemburg, who eventually chose to split from the party and form her own revolutionary organisaion, such was her disgust) to prepare the workers for the seizure of power.

What you said doesn't disprove my argument, either. The question of "reform" or "revolution" is reductionist by today's standards. There are "revolutionists" who refuse to promote their ideas through CLASS STRUGGLE (hooligans and insurrectionists amongst the anarchists, in particular), and there are radical reformists (CERTAIN "democratic socialists") who do the exact opposite.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html

I am NOT calling for an initially uber-mass party, since that can only come about with the passage of time (and patient building). In Canada, where ironically the left isn't as organizationally fortunate, I am calling for something like the SPUSA, which is on the verge of officially becoming a class-strugglist social labour organization (in all but name, of course ;) ), having inside class-strugglist "democratic socialists," Marxists, and (hopefully in bigger numbers later on) class-strugglist anarchists.

[BobKKKindle$]

A party containing multiple revolutionary tendencies is not something we should object to as long as the members of each individual tendency agree to accept party discipline and put forward the party line (agreed upon through an extensive process of internal discussion and voting) when they occupy a public platform, even if the party line conflicts with their individual viewpoint. This type of party would still be consistent with Lenin's conception of the party as the political organization of the vanguard, and this party actually corresponds closely to what existed in practice within the Bolshevik Party, at least prior to the ban on factions.

However, this party is not an accurate description of the SPD, as the SPD contained not only different kinds of revolutionary tendencies, but also a strong reformist tendency which drew inspiration from the revisionist ideas of Bernstein and other proponents of a parliamentary road to socialism (which in reality was synonymous with the rejection of socialism itself and a capitulation to the bourgeois political system) and this tendency was eventually able to secure control of the party apparatus and thereafter, even though the party continued to use revolutionary rhetoric to maintain the confidence of the working class, the SPD was essentially a bourgeois-reformist organization, opposed to the overthrow of capitalism. There is always an interval between changes in the internal composition of a party and its external appearance, which helps to explain why the SPD still appeared to be a vanguard party despite its capitulation, but the two elements eventually converged with the behaviour of the party deputies during the course of the war and the Godesberger Program in 1959 which ended the party's formal commitment to revolution. In light of this, there is no reason to glorify the SPD as an authentic vanguard party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A party containing multiple revolutionary tendencies is not something we should object to as long as the members of each individual tendency agree to accept party discipline and put forward the party line (agreed upon through an extensive process of internal discussion and voting) when they occupy a public platform, even if the party line conflicts with their individual viewpoint. This type of party would still be consistent with Lenin's conception of the party as the political organization of the vanguard, and this party actually corresponds closely to what existed in practice within the Bolshevik Party, at least prior to the ban on factions.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchists-obsession-state-t91875/index2.html


Even class-strugglist anarchists have problems with elections. Can both sides - both theirs and the Marxists - be more organizationally flexible within the same organization?

I have re-read Lenin's Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm) as a starting point (which quoted the RSDLP's Central Committee):


that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions

As Comrade Rakunin and I noted before, and as Lenin himself commented in this work, this is be a bit too strict, and is typical Trotskyist "democratic" centralism:


Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited [...] Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.

To be sure, though, there's a certain level of professionalism that should be exercised when deciding to conduct "agitation that runs counter to congress decisions" (nothing in this 1906 work talks about opposition to the decisions of the Central Committee, whose historic insurrectionary decision was opposed publicly by Zinoviev and Kamenev).

Now, what about unity of action, particularly in elections?


Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.

The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.

Given my own personal stance against electoralism as a tactic, I myself am willing to be flexible on this subject. The mass class-strugglist organization should by default be ANTI-electoral except on referendum questions (read: spoilage, refusal of ballots, but NOT abstention), but whenever elections come up Party members who wish to stand in elections should feel free to organize a UNITED "electoral platform."

Party members outside this "platform" should continue to advocate anti-electoralism (the question of anti-electoralism in places where "platform" members are running depends precisely on how many are running and their chances of getting into the legislature), while party members inside this platform should follow Lenin's suggestion. Once the elections are complete, the "platform" dissolves. Those who happen to be elected are under the direct control of the Party.

[BobKKKindle$]

A link to a previous thread does not disprove my argument - do you agree that the SPD was not an authentic vanguard party, given the prominence of openly reformist tendencies, and the subsequent behavior of party deputies during the war?

[chegitz guevara]

Bob, I've cut what I think is redundent or expository text on your part. Let me know if I've butchered your arguments and misrepresented you. It is not intentional.


If your organization has bad political positions on a whole range of issues, and these positions are reflective of what the membership wants the party to fight for, that's a good indication that you have a membership policy which is far too open and you are basically just admitting anyone who wants to join the party instead of trying to ensure that all members have a basic degree of theoretical knowledge and a commitment to revolutionary socialism. . . .

This is an important lesson which the SP-USA and many other organizations don't seem able to grasp. Membership policy was one of the issues which led to the split between the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions of the RSDLP in 1903, as the Bolsheviks argued that the vanguard party required a discriminatory membership policy which would allow the party to function as a disciplined organization capable of maintaining a consistently revolutionary program instead of falling prey to the dangers of opportunism. The SP-USA is currently a Menshevik organization and will only be able to enhance its influence if it discards the current membership policy and restricts membership to the vanguard. . . .

I don't think that the membership considerations in Russia of 1901, under Tsarist autocracy, should be considered the only means by which membership in a socialist party is determined. We live in relative political freedom in the U.S., and so it's far less important to be strict about membership due to police espionage. It is worth considering that Lenin argued for relaxing membership restrictions in the RSDLP in both 1905 and 1917. What Lenin argued in 1901, however, may or may not be valid for the USA in 2008. That's a question that can only be determined by practice. I will make one further point on this, though, and that is I agree with you. I think the party is too easy to join (though if the party had stricter membership, the revolutionaries may not have been able to join in the first place).

One thing to keep in mind is that the modern party was not created by revolutionaries. The politics the organization supports in its platform, constitution, and principles, are the legacy of social democracy, and the revolutionaries in the party have been struggling to overcome those old politics. We have fought for and won a class struggle orientation of the party politics. The party now officially holds the position that the working class must take power for itself and expropriate the capitalist class via revolution from below. We argue that it cannot be accomplished through parliamentary means, though, of course, the social democrats still remaining do not share that position. We need to continue the struggle to make our politics overtly revolutionary, get rid of the weasal wording, and remove any doubt where this organization stands.


If this is the case, then why does the SP-USA website denounce communism as an "authoritarian" social system, even though this is obviously not true, as anyone with a basic knowledge of what communism is supposed to be can attest? The website is also very unclear on the means by which socialism can be achieved - the party places emphasis on the importance of working through the electoral system and implementing socialist ideas such as public ownership of major enterprises on a local scale to attract more people to socialism, but there is no mention of revolutionary struggle and the overthrow of the bourgeois state, which is ultimately the only way to abolish capitalism and eliminate the division of society into classes. The party is opportunist.

Certainly over the last decade, the SPUSA has adopted more and more revolutionary and Marxist positions. The left of the party did not win control until 2007, and even then, that control is tenuous. Furthermore, the party has very weak centralism, and so even though revolutionaries hold a majority in the National Committee, we can't translate that into changing the party's platform at a whim. The Platform, the Constitution, and the Principles must be changed by the National Convention. The last convention was dominated by two arguments, whom to nominate as our Presidential candidate and whether or not the Wisconsin party could ignore the national constitution. Since we hold our conventions over a weekend (too short by far), we just couldn't get to programmatic questions.

That said, I agree with your criciticism of our politics. The party certain does not reflect my own positions, but I am far more free to argue for my particular political perspectives than in any other socialist organization I have experienced. When I lived in Chicago, I was close, personally with the national leadership of the ISO, including Ahmed Shawki, Alan Maas, Lance Sefla, Sharon Smith, etc. and I did a lot of joint organizing with those comrades (while I was in the American section of Lutte Ouvriere). I also worked with comrades from the American SWP, with Sparticists, with Workers World, with the Revolutionary Communist Party, Solidarity, etc. (Neither the CWI nor the IMT were organizationally significant in Chicago at the time.) I am very familiar with the internal and external working of many of these groups. Even in the most democratic of those organizations, Solidarity, opposing the national leadership on important questions got you pushed out. In groups like the ISO, it got you expelled.

Whatever the problems with the SPUSA's politics, we have the freedom to be right when the party is wrong.


I was pleased to see a "socialist" on television... particularly fox news. However, Moore does not know his shit. Many of us here would have answered the journalists questions in a way that actually represents our point of view. Moore said nothing along the lines of economic conditions that would explain why socialism in the US would be tremendously successful and very distinct from anything the world has ever seen and why Cuba doesn't depend on capitalism but the goods produced in capitalist countries. It seems like Moore just repeats workers' democracy without explaining what it actually entails and how it will be radically democratic. Not to mention that Moore didn't call himself socialist until the capitalists told him he was. Using this logic, Obama could say right now that in fact he is a socialist when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

I too have been disappointed with Moore's statements on TV. He's better in person and in print. He seems to get stiff and can't speak well on tv. That's a limitation that we couldn't know before hand. It's also probably true that anyone on our ticket would be getting a lot of media attention because of the bailout and the red-baiting by the GOP. Obviously we couldn't know that in 2007. What we did know was that even before Moore had joined the party, he was getting newspaper interviews and such on his attempt to run for the SP nomination. I have not seen as much media attention for a socialist candidate since Moorehead and La Riva of Workers World were running in 1996. That was largely because they were able to repeatedly crash Clinton campaign appearances, and their politics never made it into the MSM.

As far as the content of the appearances on tv, I think it is less important to make the proper argument (whatever that would be, given that none of us agree) since most people aren't going to remember anything Moore says, but simply that "Hey, there's a Socialist Party? I wonder what they stand for?" Then they may look us up. One thing I will note, though, is that Moore takes criticism from party members seriously. He has moved far to the left of his original position. He's never going to be a Trotskyist, but he publicly speaks of the need for the workers to take power for themselves.


On another note to the SPUSA members:
I feel like your party platform is workable but of course is lacking in places. However, the SPUSA is the best bet for US workers right now. I've heard several mentions of your next convention in 09'? If this is the case, where is it going to be held? I would be interested in bringing myself and a handful of my union members to it. Would it be necessary to become party members first to participate in the convention or can we simply come and put in our 2 cents?

Let me ask the NC about that. I don't think membership in the party is necessary to attend, but only delegates have voting and floor speaking privileges. You need to be in good standing for the six months prior to the convention to be a delegate. I would like to see more non-SP socialists and worker militants attend. Like most socialist organizations in the U.S., the SP definitely suffers from a lack of union membership (although as we see with Solidarity and the CPUSA, union membership per se isn't necessarily a good thing).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Whatever the problems with the SPUSA's politics, we have the freedom to be right when the party is wrong.

And what does that accomplish? The point is not to recognize something is incorrect but to change it.

In the "Democratic Centralist" parties you get pushed aside or thrown out for disagreeing with the leadership. In the SP you can disagree all you want, but your dissension doesn't change the party's program.

[chegitz guevara]

And what does that accomplish? The point is not to recognize something is incorrect but to change it.

In the "Democratic Centralist" parties you get pushed aside or thrown out for disagreeing with the leadership. In the SP you can disagree all you want, but your dissension doesn't change the party's program.

I do not disagree with you, comrade. If we could not change the position of the organization, then I would agree the SP would be completely worthless. But we are changing the party's stated politics. We can only make those changes at the party convention, though. The membership, not the leadership, makes those decisions.

At the last convention, the revolutionary wings of the party had the bare majority. The election of national (male) co-chair was between two communists (I lost by a single vote :cursing:, but I was only asked to stand the night before, so I had no chance to build any support--I lost to the guy who plays Karl Marx in Marx in SoHo--he's actually a far better chair than I think I could have been). I think at the next convention, we will have a decisive majority. Our online discussion has moved well to the left even in the past year, and the social democrats have turned on each other and are abandoning the organization. We attract more revolutionary minded folks to the party. I am hopeful about the future of this group.

[RHIZOMES]

It's rather embarrassing to seem his arguments get demolished by a fox news reporter.

I wouldn't say so much as "demolished" as "interrupted every 5 seconds".

[mikelepore]

What he said in the Fox interview, he was trying to articulate himself with a hyper host with no respect for him.

Just so that interviewed socialists don't get caught looking like a deer in the headlights, it would help if they would memorize a few lines that they can snap back quickly whenever a media interviewer talks ridiculous.

A few that I often use are:

"Socialism means collective ownership and democratic control, by all of the people, of the factories, farms, mills, mines, utilities and other industries and services."

"Socialism means production for social use, instead of production for sale with a view to profit."

"The socialist goal is for workers to democratically elect their own managers and supervisors."

Everyone may borrow these or roll your own. Memorize enough of these and a person can practically ignore the interviewer and make it a speech, in such a way that the interviewer won't even know they did that. A person will also lose the "uhh" and "umm."

Unlike Brian Moore who became a "socialist" just a couple months before being chosen to be a national candidate, I've been a socialist since the 1960s, so I have learned a few presentation gimmicks.

[Guerrilla22]

Voting for the socialist party usa is not going to bring about socialism.

[chegitz guevara]

Voting for the socialist party usa is not going to bring about socialism.

We don't pretend that it will. For the SP, elections are a means by which we can expand awareness of socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A link to a previous thread does not disprove my argument - do you agree that the SPD was not an authentic vanguard party, given the prominence of openly reformist tendencies, and the subsequent behavior of party deputies during the war?

The Bolsheviks also had their own opportunist tendencies that sprung up from time to time, ranging from those who wanted unity with Menshevik-Defensists (why the future troika that succeeded Lenin didn't bother to distinguish between the two Menshevik factions, I have no idea) to those who wanted to continue the war under opportunist-as-"revolutionary" illusions to, ultimately, the facilitators of the future bureaucracy (not just Stalin, but Molotov, Krestinsky, Ordzhonikidze, Syrtsov, etc.).

That doesn't disqualify the Bolsheviks as a vanguard party. In the same vein, the presence of opportunists like Ebert and Scheidemann, as well as wafflers like Haase, does not disqualify the SPD as a vanguard party.