Socialist states

What is the SPUSA's position on current socialist states such as Venezuela, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, Libya, Vietnam, ect.? I've read that the party opposes "authoritarian communist states", but i've heard Brian Moore (when he was running for president as a member of the SPUSA) talk positively about Cuba. So i'm just wondering what the parties position is.

The official position of the SPUSA, as stated in its Statement of Principles, is that we are equally opposed to 'authoritarian "Communism"' as to capitalism. Historically, the SPUSA is third campist, like the ISO. The official stance of the Party is socialism has never existed.

However, because of the word "authoritarian" and because the word "Communism" is both capitalized and in quotes, it's not really quite as clear what it means. Personally, I would argue that it's effectively meaningless, and that what it means is up to the individual comrade. In a literal sense, what it means is we are opposed to states ruled by authoritarian, capital-C Communist Party's that we consider to be fake communists. So, literally, East Germany would not fall under this logic, because it was lead by the Socialist Unity Party. English grammar doesn't seem to be our Party's strong suit.

From conversations, some comrades follow the ortho-Trot line of degenerated workers states, most of the rest consider them to be state-capitalist. A few might consider them actually existing socialism, albeit, not very good examples.

In the cases of Cuba and Venezuela, there's a lot more affection and willingness to call them socialist, by members of the Party.

What Chegitz said.

I think why "authoritarian" and "communism" are in quotes is because, since SPUSA is multi-tendency, they don't want to alienate people who may view Cuba, former USSR, as socialist states. I'm a communist, and if "communism" wasn't in quotes, I may not feel accepted in the party.

Chegitz has it more or less right. Ask three different members of the Socialist Party about the current "socialist" states, and you'll probably get at least three different opinions. Personally, I wouldn't consider any of the states you mentioned to be "socialist," though Cuba and Venezuela do seem to have more going for them than the others. When it comes to analysis of the Soviet Union and such, I tend to lean towards the "degenerated workers' state" theory, but don't apply the term carte blanche to all states.

However, because of the word "authoritarian" and because the word "Communism" is both capitalized and in quotes, it's not really quite as clear what it means. Personally, I would argue that it's effectively meaningless, and that what it means is up to the individual comrade. In a literal sense, what it means is we are opposed to states ruled by authoritarian, capital-C Communist Party's that we consider to be fake communists. So, literally, East Germany would not fall under this logic, because it was lead by the Socialist Unity Party. English grammar doesn't seem to be our Party's strong suit.

Well, politics and grammar do seem to be confused on occasion.