I am a member of the Socialist Party, USA, which describes itself as 'multi-tendency.' Does that mean it could be considered a non-doctrinaire communist party? Are there any other communist parties which do not subscribe to any particular doctrine?
I don't think the SPUSA could be consider a communist. From what I hear from people like Chegitz and others on here, the leadership is largely Social Democratic and has been very hostile to revolutionary tendencies. With that said the Workers' Party in America is pretty close to non-doctrinaire communist. If you have questions about the WPA, Miles would be the person to ask.
As someone who was in the party, no. It's "multi-tendency" in name, really. It's social-democratic and if you try to push it to the revolutionary side it seems they will kick you out.
I tend to think any working-class member of the SP who is revolutionary-minded would fit in easily in the Workers Party. They would also be welcome to "dual card", if they wished.
The way I kind of see the Socialist Party, USA, is kind of like the New Democratic Party of Canada. A centralized leadership represented in the federal party, but with semi-independant Provincial/State parties that tend to either be a little more left or centre (still leftist) compared to the Federal head. For instance the Federal NDP lead by Jack Layton was somewhere between Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist where as the Provincial wing in British Columbia under Carole James was somewhere between Social Liberal and Social Democratic. But recently it appears as though the Federal wing under Thomas Mulcair has gone to the centre and the British Columbian wing lead by Adrian Dix has fully embraced Democratic Socialism. As you can see, just because the leadership is largely one ideology, dosn't necessarily mean that any other branch of a party that follows the same leadership has to follow the same ideology.
I'm a member of the Contemporary Marxist Party (http://www.cmparty.org/) which seeks to unify the left; as such we have more anarchic people like myself as well as self-described Maoists, Democratic Socialists and even Marxist-Leninists who I'd describe as Stalinists. It makes for interesting discussions.
I am a member of the Socialist Party, USA, which describes itself as 'multi-tendency.' Does that mean it could be considered a non-doctrinaire communist party? Are there any other communist parties which do not subscribe to any particular doctrine? I am a member of the Socialist Party, USA, which describes itself as 'multi-tendency.' Does that mean it could be considered a non-doctrinaire communist party? Are there any other communist parties which do not subscribe to any particular doctrine? I've been socialist for a long time, and I prefer the more radical, complete and frank assessment and proposals of the communist parties' platforms, to those of democratic socialist parties. But I've recently been discouraged by the factional rivalry and belligerent behavior of doctrianaire communists in the general forums, which is why I'm interested in what this group has to say. SPUSA of course is a democratic socialist party rather than a communist party. I trust there, here, agreeing with everyone else isn't so important as in other forums. Though there are many differences between communist vs democratic socialist, one of the policy-differences most of interest to me regards how democracy and freedom-of-speech are interpreted. My take is that, for democratic socialist parties, democracy is _wide-open_. _Everything is up-for-grabs in every election. Hitler himself could get equal or proportionate airtime and print-space, and could run for office. We'd still have to listen, in the news, to the arguments of Democrats and Republicans, arguments for capitalism, and news about Democrats and Republicans. ...whereas, the communist parties offer to write socialism, and probably their specific platforms, into the Consititution. ...to write a new constitution that incorporates their socialist platform. The country would be a constitutionally socialist country. Speakiing for myself, I don't feel a need to have the freedom to vote for Capitalism. I don't need that option in every election. If I vote for a communist party, then I'm voting for its way of doing things. So why wouldn't I want its platform as the consititution. Social choices and elections would be within the framework of the communist party platform. There's no need for every election to be "Anything-Can-Happen Day". And, speaking for myself, I'm tired of hearing only about Republican and Democrats, in the news. I'm tired of hearing only the media's permitted points of view, with everything based on the media's very limited permitted-premises. In a new socialist society, I don't want to hear those things _at all_. I don't want them spoiling my radio & tv for me. Aesthetically, why should we have to hear what's repugnant to us? Therefore, I don't need the "everything-pemitted" democratic socialist interpretation of "free speech". The PSL platform says, at one point that free speech would be respected, except for advocacy of returning to capitalism (or something to that effect). I agree that freedom of speech shouldn't protect speech that is repugnant to the people who put the new socialist society into power. So: Different interpretations of democracy and free-speech, for the communist vs democratic-socialist parties. I much prefer the communist interpretation. ...along with the greater frankness, forthrightness, and radical completeness of the communist party platforms. But I ask the same question that the OP asked: Is there a non-doctrinaire communist party? If there isn't, then there should be. The people that I met in the general forums are enough to put anyone off communism. Maybe that's an example of why communism has a bad name, in many people's perception. SPUSA? Though I prefer communist parties, for the above-stated reasons, the democratic socialist version of democracy and freedom-of-speech would be more of a nuisance and a bother, rather than an actual problem. Hitler, GW Bush, Clinton, etc. wouldn't really win an election, and they'd at least no longer get an undue share of airtime and print-space. People point out that SPUSA doesn't support revolution. They (and the CPUSA) accept and go along with the assumption that the existing democracy can be used in order to bring socialism. ...that the existing democracy can be used successfully for the change to socialism and justice. I agree with those who consider that a dubious hope. I doubt that the rulers are going to relinquish power just because they lose an election. In fact, of course, as the ones who count the votes, they won't let themselves lose an election. Still, that's something that people will have to find out for themselves, when it becomes blatantly obvious. I feel that, most likely, when it becomes obvious that we aren't allowed genuine democracy, _that's_ when people, on a large scale, might be ready to begin the national &/or worldwide non-participation and non-support with the capitalist system that is neither by them nor for them. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to pursue the electoral approach to its phony-ness-revealing endpoint? Therefore, I don't criticize SPUSA and CPUSA for professing confidence in our democracy, for their public position regarding the efficacy of our [phoney] democracy. But, preferring a communist party, I think it would be better if there were a non-doctrinaire communist party. Unumundisto
Solidarity seems to be a rather non-sectarian party. It is definitely socialist, and revolutionary, and it has some very loose unofficial affiliation with the Re-unified Fourth International, but its not in any way a specifically Trotskyist organization. This particular organization seems to me to be the closest to my own views, and seems very forward thinking and immune from historical hero-worship.
