[SocialistsUnmoderated] Socialist Party USA or Socialist Party of America?
-------Original Message --------
Subject: [SocialistsUnmoderated] Socialist Party USA or Socialist Party of America?
From: RedLabor@aol.com
Date: Fri, June 10, 2005 9:46 am
To: SocialistsUnmoderated@yahoogroups.com
Comrades,
[JOE DENEEN WRITES]: A has since its founding proclaimed itself the rightful heir to the old Socialist Party of America and its dubious history and legacy, along side Social Democrats USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Do we rightful own any of it? Do we really want it? Historically, the SPA was formally renamed the SDUSA, and as such is where the SPA's real history and legacy degenerated. The SPUSA was, in fact, a by-product of an organized faction within the SPA, the Debs Caucus, that, perhaps arrogantly, proclaimed itself heir by proclaiming its newly formed SPUSA as the SPA re-incarnated. The SPUSA, perhaps more correctly, is a splinter party more a kin in its relationship to the SPA as the Socialist Workers Party or the Communist Party USA.
[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: When I joined the Socialist Party USA in 1996 and Democratic Socialists of America in 1997, I joined the two groups precisely because it was part of America's democratic-socialist heritage. There are other democratic-socialist orgs, but the SPUSA and DSA fits my political orientation better than CCDS and Solidarity. I respect CCDS and was a member briefly, but Leninism (even their reform Leninism) doesn't necessarily fit in with my worldview. They did good work down here in North Carolina, and I am on friendly terms with most of them to this day. Regarding Solidarity, my understanding about them is that they are a (soft) Trotskyist group. By "soft," I mean that they seemingly reject "party-line" politics. But while I consider most of Solidarity as Comrades without a doubt, I am not a Trotskyist (not even "soft" Trotskyist)." The SPUSA, DSA, CCDS, Solidarity, and any other distinctly democratic-socialist organization should be encouraged to work closer together. If someone proposed unifying the SPUSA, DSA, CCDS, and Solidarity today, I would be the first to say "YES!"
Getting back to legacies, history, and tradition, what's wrong with the old Socialist Party of America other than it sadly becoming Social Democrats USA by the end of 1972? When I was a student at East Carolina University during the early 1990s, my right-wing American History Professor tried vilifying the legacy of Eugene V. Debs. I decided to study Debs on my own independently, and I found honor in Debs and the American Socialist movement. No matter how much Dr. Winslow tried to make the legacy of Eugene V. Debs negative, I found plenty to like about him. Yes, this right-wing professor who hated Socialism and preached against it in his History lecture got me interested in Eugene V. Debs and Socialism. So much for indoctination.
While to this day, I admire the History of Eugene V. Debs, I identify more with Norman Thomas. I have a book entitled "Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist" written by W.A. Swanberg. This is one of my prize books in my collection. It was also autographed by Mary Cal Hollis, Quinn Brisben, David McReynolds, and Frank Zeidler. I never gotten a chance to have Walt Brown sign it, but I will mail the book to him this year, so he can do that. It would be nice if soneone could get me in touch with Willa Kenoyer, so she can also sign it.
Anyway, after reading about the life of Norman Thomas and everything he helped accomplished from indirectly influencing FDR in the New Deal during the 1930s all the way to the 1963 March on Washington whereby Martin Luther King Jr. would deliver his famous " Have a Dream" speech, it is too bad that many younger Comrades do not quite identify with the Norman Thomas legacy. While I like Norman Thomas, he made some mistakes, especially in the early 1950s when he served on the National Executive Board of the American Civil Liberties Union. While I share the basic anti-Communist outlook of Norman Thomas, he was misguided to bar Communist Party members from serving on the National Executive Board of the ACLU. Of course, he was not a militant type. He became a Socialist by through his faith. As a Presbyterian Minister, he was part of the Social Gospel movement which were opposed to the poverty that existed in those times. He may not have been well read in Marxism, and he might have come from a well to do background, but the level of poverty that existed and the injustice of war (WWI) prompted him to join the Socialist Party of America.
During World War II, I personally think that the SP were correct to support the fight against Nazism. While supporting the war effort, it was ONLY the Socialist Party and the ACLU (which Norman Thomas was a major figure in both orgs) that protested against the incareration of Japanese Americans in the Concentration Camps on the West Coast. Not even the CPUSA, in spite of their honorable work they did in Civil Rights for African-Americans, questioned the U.S. Government.
A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters also is another famous SP figure that makes me proud to be a democratic-socialist. He attempted to organize a 1943 Civil Rights March in Washington. In order for Roosevelt not to upset his Southern base, he offered Randolph to desegregate Washington DC by Executive Order. Although Civil Rights did not reach the whole country, A. Philip Randolph's effort laid the foundations for the achievement Martin Luther King would make in the 1950s and 1960s.
While supporting the legacy of Michael Harrington might be the biggest heresy by some here, I am prepared to defend his legacy. His most famous work, "The Other America," which was published in 1962 would lay foundations for the Great Society. While I do not think that LBJ's Great Society programs didn't go far enough, we did see efforts and actual achievements in the reduction of poverty in this country. While those reforms had mixed results by the 1970s, it came to a virtual stop with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Today, we are so far away from the optomism of 1964-68 in terms a national commitment to fight poverty. This is partly why I am not as critical as some on the left in LBJ's presidency. Compared to all the clowns (Nixon, Ford, Carter, REAGAN, Bush 1, Clinton, and BUSH 2), former President Lyndon B. Johnson comes across as a great humanitarian. The Socialist Party were correct and justified to support LBJ in 1964.
Another honorable American that I am interested in is vilify by the Christian Right today of being "a racist." The Christian Right are hypocrites. Margaret Sanger was never a racist. She believed in birth control, sexual freedom, and family planning for all people. Her quest for reproductive rights contributed to what would be the modern feminist movement. She helped created Planned Parenthood in 1916. It is ironic that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who are both racist and anti-Semitic would accuse Sanger of being racist and anti-Semitic.
[JOE DENEEN WRITES]: In the SPUSA today there tends ends to be a gravitation towards the history and legacy of the SPA, especially in our official party history encompassing the history of the SPA. Does it really serve us any good as a party to continue to claim this history, good and bad, that we really don't own anymore than the SWP (nevermind they split-off decades earlier)?
[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: Are you trying to re-write history again? What I see is an attempt to get rid of "moderate perceptions" of our political history. It seems like only a revolutionary or militant interpretation of the SP's History will do for you. This is not to start a fight; I am just going by what I am interpreting in what you are saying here.
[JOE DENEEN WRITES]: How often do you have someone who generally agrees with our politics comment about how turned off they are with the SPUSA simply because of the SPA connection?
[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: What connection?
[JOE DENEEN WRITES]: It seems quite tiring being put on the defensive every time someone makes a negative remark about "our history" (read SPA's) simply because the SPUSA, for emotional or nostalgic reasons, holds onto a history it should never have took up to proclaim and defend in the first place. Let the SPA die when it did, and let the SPUSA live independent and free from that history and legacy. We are a new independent party from the old SPA. Our histories relate only in that the Debs Caucus split from the SPA and established the SPUSA, similar to the SPA and SWP relate only in their schism.
[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: The Debs Caucus weren't really all that different by the late 60s and early 70s from the Harringtonists or even the Schatmanites in terms of economic outlook. All three factions admired the achievements of social-democracies that changed the lives of people in Western Europe for the better. I am not being Eurocentric in my remark, but I am making a point here that no faction were particularly "revolutionary" in terms of how they felt an economy should operate. I have a 1970 Edition of "The Socialist Tribune" whereby the Debs Caucus praised electoral gains from the Social Democrats of Austria and the Social Democrats of Finland.
[JOE DEENEN WRITES]: Should the SPUSA formally break this SPA connection? This is not to say individuals may not admire and embrace the legacies and politics of the SPA and its members (like Debs or Thomas), rather that the SPUSA as a party finally make a clear break from the SPA and end this silliness as "heir" status of being the continuation of the SPA. Our formal history should begin, if anything, with the Debs Caucus within the SPA, leading to the formation of the SPUSA.
[MELVIN LITTLE REPLIES]: I would have a deep problem if the SPUSA breaks with its past. There's more to be proud of than ashamed. This is another reason for my ongoing continual support for the Socialist International. Our party SHOULD be a part of that legacy, not the legacy of Bolshevism.
For Bread, Red Roses (or Carnations), and Peaceful Revolutions!
Melvin Little
Socialist Party of North Carolina (http://www.ncsocialist.org/)
"I would never trade one form of tyranny for another."
---Tommy Douglas
--- Garland Williams <garland@...> wrote:
Again here is an issue not worth being discussed out side of a few Comrades over a few beers. It seems like a fair discussion but not of any real importance like say instant run off voting or affordable housing. Melvin knows this but can't resist debating party history. It looks like there could be some kind of drive to push this debate to a larger audience I would suggest resisting that at all costs.
Is there still an internal party publication? If so that is where this type of discussion belongs.
Peace,
_______________________
Garland Williams
www.valleypiper.com
--- Michael C. Marino <action_chair@...> wrote:
This is something so minor that it is not worthy of a discussion among a few Comrades over beer. This is a discussion so minor that it is worthy, at best, of a conversation between Joe DeNeen and his bedroom wall, if the wall will stay still long enough for him to finish.
Good grief.
And doesn't Melvin know better YET?!? Melvin, you have legs (last I saw); you do not need to take the place of the brick wall that DeNeen should be addressing. It was JOE's choice to babble incoherently, Melvin, but it is YOUR choice to trumpet it about and try to twist his words into a rational argument for the purpose of having something to debate.
Siddown and lemme explain something halfway important:
The world belongs to the living. Re-read that sentence as many times as necessary, contemplate it, go on a retreat, light up, do whatever you have to do in order to get that concept into your head.
If people join political parties because of nostalgia, if the people who did something that was a pretty good idea are STILL the "leaders" of the group 30-70 years after their death, if you find yourselves contemplating what "your next move will be" in 19-fucking-19, then you are living in a world that belongs to the dead.
May Allah guide you,
Michael C. Marino
</bush method="impeach">