First Meeting

We recently had an introductory meeting take place in Cleveland. We're trying to form a new local called The Socialist Party of NE Ohio, I think.

Anyway, I want to talk about one of the people I met there.

Of the four people who met, I'm fairly certain two of us are revolutionary. I'm not certain about the third. The last is certainly a reformist who has no idea what socialism or capitalism is. There was an awkward moment when he began talking about the "socialist countries of Scandinavia...and how thrilled these people are with their government." It was an awkward moment because it was off-topic to the matters we were discussing, and also because we moved on. I didn't immediately challenge him on it, and I'm beginning to regret that.

With only around a single year in the party, I'm certainly new - and these past two months have been my attempts to get more active in it.

I'd like to ask some of the more experienced comrades what they have been doing in order to ostracize reformists, why they have failed, and what needs to be done in order to kick them out?

I know the party is multi-tendency, but is this umbrella extended over social democrats?

We recently had an introductory meeting take place in Cleveland. We're trying to form a new local called The Socialist Party of NE Ohio, I think.

Congratulations!

Anyway, I want to talk about one of the people I met there.

Of the four people who met, I'm fairly certain two of us are revolutionary. I'm not certain about the third. The last is certainly a reformist who has no idea what socialism or capitalism is. There was an awkward moment when he began talking about the "socialist countries of Scandinavia...and how thrilled these people are with their government." It was an awkward moment because it was off-topic to the matters we were discussing, and also because we moved on. I didn't immediately challenge him on it, and I'm beginning to regret that.

Remember it in case it comes up again. You also might want to point out that, like everywhere else in Europe, various parts of the Scandinavian welfare states are being rolled back, and in a majority of those countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Finland), right wing governments are currently in control, representing a challenge to their "socialist" systems. Furthermore, the rise of far right parties (like the Danish People's Party, Sweden Democrats, and True Finns) has been particularly stark, so there's a lot more polarisation and discontent in Scandinavia than might meet the surface look, especially when compared to countries like Greece or Portugal. To be fair, the new Scandinavian far right isn't particularly pro-free market as a whole (though that current is certainly represented), but the nationalist and anti-immigrant politics they do put forth are just as disturbing.

With only around a single year in the party, I'm certainly new - and these past two months have been my attempts to get more active in it.

I'd like to ask some of the more experienced comrades what they have been doing in order to ostracize reformists, why they have failed, and what needs to be done in order to kick them out?

I know the party is multi-tendency, but is this umbrella extended over social democrats?

In an SP membership handbook that's several years old and not really used anymore AFAIK, social democracy is an accepted tendency in the Socialist Party. The only two groups that are not are "Leninism" and "Liberalism." In practise, self-described Leninists are allowed in the Socialist Party as long as they aren't a member of any "democratic centralist" organisations, which is also problematic. As for social democrats, I would argue that, at least in terms of political strategy, they blend into liberalism fairly easily, so it's difficult to separate the two. And when it comes down to it, it's more the strategy you advocate than your political labels and theory that matter, though the latter certainly does influence the former.

As things currently stand in the Socialist Party, I would argue the dominant tendency, at least in terms of what strategy is being followed, is unfortunately social democratic. While it's not quite DSA-style social democracy where working within the Democrats is cynically put forth as a progressive strategy, the dominant perspective right now seems to stand at opportunism (lack of criticism, etc) towards groups to our right (with the Green Party being a good example), and sectarianism with groups to our left. I'd argue this is a mistake, and am working to oppose this perspective. My own politics are revolutionary Marxist, and I sympathise with much of the current Communist Party of Great Britain (www.cpgb.org.uk) in terms of political strategy.

Congratulations!

Thanks, I'm really excited to be able to help.

You also might want to point out that, like everywhere else in Europe, various parts of the Scandinavian welfare states are being rolled back, and in a majority of those countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Finland), right wing governments are currently in control, representing a challenge to their "socialist" systems. Furthermore, the rise of far right parties (like the Danish People's Party, Sweden Democrats, and True Finns) has been particularly stark, so there's a lot more polarisation and discontent in Scandinavia than might meet the surface look, especially when compared to countries like Greece or Portugal. To be fair, the new Scandinavian far right isn't particularly pro-free market as a whole (though that current is certainly represented), but the nationalist and anti-immigrant politics they do put forth are just as disturbing.

I'll remember what you said. I was thinking about challenging why he thinks socialism is what is in place in Scandinavia rather than welfare capitalism.

In an SP membership handbook that's several years old and not really used anymore AFAIK, social democracy is an accepted tendency in the Socialist Party. The only two groups that are not are "Leninism" and "Liberalism." In practise, self-described Leninists are allowed in the Socialist Party as long as they aren't a member of any "democratic centralist" organisations, which is also problematic. As for social democrats, I would argue that, at least in terms of political strategy, they blend into liberalism fairly easily, so it's difficult to separate the two. And when it comes down to it, it's more the strategy you advocate than your political labels and theory that matter, though the latter certainly does influence the former.

I suspected social democracy was accepted, what with our multi-tendency platform - which I consider a greater potential strength than the relative weakness it's been in allowing reformism to flourish within. I think the kind of reformism they seem to favor is a surefire strategy to never overthrowing capitalism. The struggles and victories of social democracy may have been a way of "training" the working class, but I don't think the reformism contemporary social democrats favor holds any hope at all for human liberation. I hope what will become my open disdain for both reformism and equating a welfare state with socialism doesn't get me in trouble, but if it does, I probably don't belong in the party.

...the dominant perspective right now seems to stand at opportunism (lack of criticism, etc) towards groups to our right (with the Green Party being a good example), and sectarianism with groups to our left. I'd argue this is a mistake, and am working to oppose this perspective. My own politics are revolutionary Marxist, and I sympathise with much of the current Communist Party of Great Britain (www.cpgb.org.uk) in terms of political strategy.

I agree with you that it's a mistake, and it needs to be changed. My politics are revolutionary Marxism, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Rosa Luxemburg had written.

I think the name of the SP is too important to be under the control of social democrats, otherwise I'd leave the party for a more revolutionary group. My fear is the SP going the way of the CPUSA.

It probably shouldn't get you in trouble, because at least formally even the people advocating a social democratic strategy within the Socialist Party wouldn't consider Scandinavia to be socialist. It's a somewhat peculiar type of social democratic politics since in has some differences with how other social democrats in the United States approach their organising; there's still formal hostility to the Democratic Party in elections, though in my view there's the real danger of an uncritical orientation towards the Green Party. It might be following a smaller tail, but it's tail-following nonetheless, and I'm concerned about the SP abandoning its political independence in practise.

I think the name of the SP is too important to be under the control of social democrats, otherwise I'd leave the party for a more revolutionary group. My fear is the SP going the way of the CPUSA.

I feel the same way, though unfortunately some revolutionary comrades in the SP aren't convinced that the Party can be saved at all, so there's debate going on within ourselves on this point. My view is that reorienting the SP towards revolutionary politics, barring a mass exodus of the current right wing, will be a long process, and one where we need to pay attention to the mistakes made in the past in terms of trying to win people over and present our viewpoint in a positive manner. The risk of being an opposition is that it's easy to be painted as negative and obstructionist and not having any sort of alternative programme; much of that is rather disingenuous as you don't necessarily need an alternative strategy to be critical of what's going on currently, but it's how a lot of people think, for better or for worse.

While the hand book does say social democracy is a tendency within the Party, the Party also officially holds the position that social democracy is not socialism. That's from a convention resolution from the 80s. Between a hand book and a convention resolution, I take the resolution.

For me, the issue of social democrats isn't that much of a problem, as long as they are committed to democracy, i.e., if they lose a vote, they go along with the results, or at the very least, don't go against them. Right now, the editor/co-chair of the Party simply ignores any vote he doesn't like, does what he wants, and the National Committee, which is so desperate for the illusion of unity that it won't stand up to him, simply let's it happen.

We have people who come to our meetings who hold social democratic views. Instead of ostracizing them, we struggle with them to get them to understand the limitations and history of social democracy, to understand that if all the slaves on the plantation vote to abolish slavery, the master isn't simply going to move out of the big house. Some walk away, some think really hard about what we say. This is the essence of organizing.

So look at this comrade as an opportunity to practice your skills at winning people over to a revolutionary perspective.

Saw that your charter application was put through. Congratulations to the SP of NE Ohio; may you be a solid, revolutionary local!

chegitz, I'll look at it that way. I'll make a serious effort to try to not put him on the defensive in the event he brings it up again.

Thanks, Zeus!

I have a friend who is moving to the Cleveland area actually today I think. He was going to get involved in the SPUSA back in Illinois but has obsolutely no money so he didn't join. I'm positive he would love to help you guys out though. If you give me a phone number or something I could try to have him give you a call.

Btw, congrats on starting up a branch. Also, even though it is a multi-tendency party I think it would be best to try and keep the social-democrats and reformists to a minimum as much as possible. I'm all for unity and working with them but let them join the DSA or some other strictly reformist party is what I think.

Dunk:

I could be wrong about this, but it may suggest wisdom NOT to challenge this in a preliminary meeting. And the tense moment you mention suggests that others may have picked up on this as well. For what it is worth, I offer the following for your consideration:

1. Know the relevant party statements.
2. Hold these graciously but resolutely.

Radical, paradigmatic changes are perhaps rare. But we can acclimate to a radical perspective over time. Where this does not happen, that strategy will likely lead us to conclude that we’re getting nowhere because we belong elsewhere. So it is the individual’s very dissent which excludes her/himself.

Many years have lapsed since Ohio had a strong, democratic socialist presence. It is therefore perfectly logical and necessary that the local would contrast sharply the social democratic vision and a democratic socialist vision.

As you think about drafting promotional leaflets, a FAQ space on a website, public campaigns, etc., there will be ample opportunities to redress this if necessary. Wherever core, philosophic differences exist, you trust them to manifest themselves in numerous issues.

Congrats to you and to the SP of NE Ohio!

Proud Socialist

Convention resolution aside (though that's an important thing to consider), a section of the membership of the SP-USA adhere to some sort of social democratic politics. Probably a majority of all members do, but much of the SP's membership is paper members. As far as active members go, I'd say there's a majority of people who hold either explicitly revolutionary positions, or vacillate between revolutionary politics and somewhat centrist ones. Even in this case, I'd say it's not necessarily a problem to have social democrats in the organisation, as long as everyone abides by the mechanisms of internal democracy that we have. As Chegitz has said on other forums, social democrats and revolutionary socialists generally act like oil and water, but democracy can act as an emulsifier to help them mix in some sort of cohesive (perhaps even positive?) way. I'm not sure comparing the SP to a jar of mayonnaise is necessarily the message we want to be sending to people, but I think the analogy holds; if democratic procedure and decision-making is upheld by both sides, then the political differences can be worked out in a positive manner.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem is a little bit deeper, and stems from the political conclusions that social democrats tend to draw. A key part of social democratic politics is their view on the current state as being a class-neutral force, which can be used by a social democratic government to pursue a sort of kinder, gentler capitalism. Thus, social democrats represent a wing of the workers movement that ties itself to the state and its interests, and as such wants to control the workers movement by any means necessary in order to subsume it to its pro-state interests. Therein lies the problem, and while this isn't being played out exactly in the SP-USA right now (though comrades may disagree with me on that), it's certainly a danger in any sort of party that has both revolutionary and reformist tendencies. This is (in my view) what led to the political degeneration of the Workers Party of Brazil, and the Communist Refoundation Party in Italy, for example.

Let me just say that this thread has helped me make my decision to remain in the Party. Despite the fact that the NC has basically abdicated its authority to a rogue officer who seems determined to recast the SP as a social democratic organization, knowing that new revolutionary comrades and locals are coming in to the party gives me a reason to stay.

Chegitz: I'm Glad To Read This!

Like Dunk, I'm new to the SP. Neoliberalism has failed. The social democratic agenda of the Democratic Party has failed. The Democratic Party has far too much at stake in this property-based system of exploitation to be committed to replace that with a system of social ownership of the means of production, etc.

Democratic socialism alone is concerned to put 'people's lives under their own control' (as the Statement of Principles has it). This is where I belong. And this is not the time to concede ground.

I see from the SPUSA website that the NE Ohio local has a meeting coming up in just over a week. Let us know how things go, Dunk.

Proud Socialist