Socialist International Debate
Heiwa, Little, and Marino Consider the Possibility of Expelling Melvin Little from the SI.
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: I would support "Observer Status" for the SPUSA in the SI (Socialist International). I think it's important that we be more formally plugged into the international scene, given the imperialist role "our" country plays in the world. Observer status would allow us to still build our own relationships to left parties outside of the S.I. while allowing us to dialogue with parties in it.
Melvin Little [responds]: I agree with this premise. The Observer Status is the best way to have an "inside and outside" view of things in the global democratic-socialist movement.
Michael C. Marino [questioning]: How much does "Observer Status" cost?
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: I would wholeheartedly support YPSL re-affiliating with IUSY (International Union of Socialist Youth) www.iusy.org I think having the connection would be a real boost in the perspectives of YPSL, while small in the U.S., they would be reconnected to a tradition much larger in the rest of the world. IUSY has always been to the left of the SI itself while being an affiliate of it (sort of like YPSL's relationship with SPUSA)
Melvin Little [responds]: I am not a member of the Young People's Socialist League today. As most of you know, I am 35 years old. I was in YPSL during my late 20s. But if a former YPSL's opinion can be valued on this subject, I would support the affiliation of the Young People's Socialist League into the International Union of Socialist Youth. Why not?
Michael C. Marino [dissenting]: The connection between YPSL and SP-USA is uncertain; when I was on the NC of the SP-ISA, there was no indication that YPSL maintained any formal affiliation with the SP-USA. As such, I think it's another topic and ought to be considered separately.
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: I also would wholeheartedly support our commissions working in/with the equivalent international socialist federations such as the International League of Religious Socialist, International Lesbian & Gay Association, Minority Rights Group International (for "minority" groups in countries around the world), et. al. (sic)
Melvin Little [responds]: I agree.
Michael C. Marino [dissenting]: These are not serious efforts. Having discussions with fellow intellectuals about the theoretical rights of each little division possible to draw about people is foolishness and time wasted. We need feet in the soil (local action) far more than we need to try to make ourselves look worldly by getting connected with international discussions about philosophical perspectives.
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: I think we should revive international committees/commissions on the local, state, national levels in the SPUSA co-sponsoring with YPSL tours of speakers from SI & IUSY and other organizations here in the U.S. Being in NYC, the home of the United Nations I'm encouraging the local to co-sponsor an event with the Puerto Rican Independence Party and a group I'm working with (which I hope one day will have observer status in the Socialist International), the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement (calling for a new relationship with the United States (anywhere from commonwealth status (as Puerto Rico is currently allowing for some semblences of national sovereignty (for example, Puerto Rico will have it's own team in the Olympics, Spanish as a primary language, etc. (but which the Puerto Rico Indepdenence Party views as being a colonial status which I agree with them on) to outright independence (check out www.hawaii-nation.org for this perspective).
Melvin Little [responds]: I agree, but the Puerto Rican Independence Party is actually a full member of the Socialist International. It is actually kind of nice driving from town to town in Puerto Rico seeing the local branch of the PIP (or a local branch of a "socialist-party)."
Michael C. Marino [dissenting]: Particularly irrelevant is it to work on matters that are of no concern beyond basic human needs so long as they go unmet. While it should be obvious to even the casual observer that both Hawai'i and Puerto Rico should be independent nations, it is an insignificant detail compared to the question of whether or not the people in those locations, plus in our own locals, have adequate food, education, etc. New York is an excellent example: that for 15,000 signatures, the New York [chapter] could have a ballot line and work on implementing legislation and electing candidates; yet no effort is made to do so. If New York is not willing to make a serious effort to take action, there is no reason why any logical individual would assume that we are to be taken any the more seriously simply because we have international concerns. No effort to do anything about concerns = no one will take us seriously.
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: I think we should have a dialogue on this in Arise! and at minimum should cover the workings of the various international socialist networks in The Socialist (for example the Socialist International & IUSY annual gatherings, Socialist International Women, et. al).
Melvin Little [responds]: Again, I totally agree.
Michael C. Marino [dissenting]: I see no point in playing the role of being a spectator to the actions of others; I seriously question throwing time and money away on frivolities when there is much needd work to be done.
Jesse Heiwa [writes]: We can of course informally create contacts and if not on the national level, I would encourage folks to start on their local level (North Carolina, New York, et. al). In NYC, with ethnic groups from all around the world, many socialist parties from other countries have branches here (PRD and PRT of Mexico, PIP of Puerto Rico, etc) and it would be good to co-sponsor events with them.
Melvin Little [responds]: This is a damned good idea. When reading "Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist," I found out that many socialists and social-democratic figures came to visit the New York City Branch of Socialist Party. Some of the people I found out about visiting included Golda Meir, U-Thant, and various UK Labour people.
Michael C. Marino [concurring]: Indeed, but it is not who sponsors an event that is important; it is what the event accomplishes which makes all the difference in the world. If you co-host a forum with the APSRKD Party of Yuroslavaniastan about water rights, and nothing is done as soon as the forum is over, you have just wasted your time and whatever money you put into it. If you work with other organizations to accomplish something, or even to just attempt to accomplish something, than your effort was worth it. Associations and events should not be for appearances' sake; build from the ground up. If working on establishing a soup kitchen leads to working with a delegation from Lithuania, great! If you want to network with the delegation from Lithuania and THEN try to figure out what to do, you will find yourself sitting on the roof of your house, trying to figure out how to put in the foundation.
Jesse Heiwa [responds]: Michael, your condescending attitude combined with a total disdain for the rights of peoples to self-determination (yes, some socialists once (and it seems now) supported their country's "empire" (whether formally like the British, French, et. al or the unnamed one like the U.S.) over other peoples because of a narrow view of what socialism is. Socialism is about the liberation of the world and against ALL oppression. If we are not to be a "tribune of the oppressed", then we are in league with the oppressors.
Michael C. Marino [responds]: I am in favour of independence for Hawai'i, as I said. I am in favour of international links and perspective. I am not in favour of wasting time trying to *look* like I am doing something, when I can, instead be actually working to get something done. The approach you describe sounds like grandstanding and patting yourself on the back; I do not think that you will achieve anything with the tactic you propose.
Jesse H.
For Bread, Red Roses, and Peaceful Revolutions!
Melvin Little
Socialist Party USA
Democratic Socialists of America
American Civil Liberties Union
United Food & Commercial Workers International
Union, Local 204
Long live the Fist and Rose,
Michael C. Marino
BACKHROUND
by Melvin Little
Comrades,
NOTE: This post is a bit long, and I Cc: this to my American Comrades just in case they want to comment on this.
Whenever I look and read the website of the Socialist International, I tell myself what an optimistic group this is. This worldwide federation of social-democratic, democratic-socialist, and labour-parties represents a sort of mini United Nations of the global democratic-left. In the United States, there are only two official members and one affiliated organization with the SI. Social Democrats USA (a right-wing social-democratic organization that supports moderate progressive politics on the domestic level while being supportive of far right-wing American foreign policies) and Democratic Socialists of America (a left-wing social-democratic group that intends to convert the US Democratic Party into an official "socialist-party" just like the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, or the New Democratic Party of Canada). Both groups are with the Socialist International, and they also work with the US Democratic Party. Social Democrats USA can be found at (http://www.socialdemocrats.org/) and the Democratic Socialists of America organization can be found at (http://www.dsausa.org/). The Jewish Labor Bund (which is a democratic-socialist organization of Jewish anti-Zionists) is affiliated with the Socialist International. There's no current website nor really much political activity from this group in the US.
I am a member of Democratic Socialists of America, so I hold my head up with pride of contributing to the work of the Socialist International through DSA. I am also a member of the Socialist Party USA (A HREF="http://www.sp-usa.org/">http://www.sp-usa.org/) which is not currently in the SI. There's a reason for this. In 1972, the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation was affiliated with the Socialist International. The SP-SDF was the successor (at that time) to the old Socialist Party of America, which was the party of such respected notables as Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, Michael Harrington, A. Philip Randolph, Margaret Sanger, Mother Jones, Victor Berger, Jack London, Helen Keller, Morris Hillquit, Upton Sinclair, Walter Reuther, and even Albert Einstein. The party was a victim of its own influential success. In 1901, the SP was to America what the British Labour Party was in 1900. They were and still to some degree (if you exclude the Tony Blair faction) are sister parties of one another through tradition. I am talking about both DSA and the SPUSA. Many of the ideas and platfrom areas championed by Eugene Debs between 1900-1920 and Norman Thomas between 1928-1948 was watered down into Presdient Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression. Many so-called "liberal reforms" is tied to the old Socialist Party. Cold War repression, states adopting laws that restricted ballott access, and a slow climb toward relative prosperity seriuously impaired the Socialist Party by the 1950s. In some ways, I represent a very 1950s ideological outlook for an SP member. I do NOT mean that I am right-wing, although some today would assert that about my politics. While I am not right-wing, I certainly am NOT very radical nor revolutionary. My politics would fit very well in most SI parties today (but more than likely on the left side). Call me a democratic-socialist or a (left-wing) social-democratic type.
In 1972, the SP-SDF suffered years of inter party conflict. There was disagreement over the support of the US presense in Vietnam. The right-wing of the party led by the late Max Schatman supported the US led war in Vietnam. They also were totally supportive of everything (including all of the wrong doings) of Israel and tended to support the work of the right-wing factions of the Zionist movement. They didn't even have the decency to be Socialist Zionists. In addition, this group in the SP was the group that ceased the SP running independent campaigns. Instead, they decided for the SP to be a faction inside the US Democratic Party in order to move it to the left to become a de facto western European style "socialist-party." The left-wing of the party decided to form a caucus to take on the Max Schatman led leadership. They called this new caucus the Debs Caucus. The Debs caucus in the late 1960s and early 1970s were totally anti-war. Although strongly "anti-Communist," the Debs Caucus still desired peace over the rigid Cold War posture. The Debs Caucus was anti-NATO and anti-Warsaw Pact. Another issue was Israel. Many socialists around the world were originally symphatetic to the Jewish Socialist Zionists that wanted to create a State in order to end anti-Semitic oppression in 1948. And especially because of the high numbers of Jewish people in the membership, the Socialist Party of America was very pro-Israeli. Even a number in the Debs Caucus "might" have been pro-Israeli themselves, but they could not justify every action by Israel. Israel would be another issue that would cause faction fights in the party. Until recently, I was still a supporter of Israel. Today, I am no longer a Zionist. Of course, I still do not support the Intifada either. My present position is Arab & Jewish Socialist Unity.
And of course, the total realignment inside the US Democratic Party was another issue. It became more difficult for the party to support pro war Democrats. In 1960, the party endorsed John F. Kennedy. In 1964, the party endorsed Lyndon B. Johnson. And in 1968, the party endorsed Hubert Humphrey. By 1972, the right-wing faction led by Max Schatman felt that Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern was not "anti-Communist" nor "pro-Israeli" enough. The party took a neutral position in the 1972 presidential election. The Schatmanites quietly supported and voted for Richard Nixon. The faction led by Mike Harrington supported George McGovern. And the majority of the Debs Caucus supported Dr. Benjamin Spock of the People's Party. The division was too great, and the party split three ways in 1972.
By the end of 1972, the right-wing faction of the party changed its name from the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation to Social Democrats USA. The middle group led by Michael Harrington formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in 1973 which later merged with the (moderate) new-left New American Movement in 1982, thus renaming the group Democratic Socialists of America. And of course, the Debs Caucus which had a majority of "old timers" in the membership and still held on to many statewide affiliate and local branches renamed themselves as the Socialist Party USA in May 1973. Social Democrats USA had the technically legal right status to the SI, but DSA was also granted status. The SPUSA were not eligible for membership in the SI.
Social Democrats USA has not paid up their dues to the SI since 1996. This really makes DSA the sole US affiliate to the SI. There's division inside the Socialist Party USA tot his day on the question whether the party should be inside the SI. When I joined in 1996, I was in full favor of affiliation. People inside my party would be correct to assume that I (still) favor affiliation, but it is currently too expensive to join this group at this time. Some reasonable (and unreasonable) members of the SPUSA argued that the SI has drifted to the right. I am sadly inclined to agree; however, that's mostly reflected in some of the parties in the organization. Most members of the SP today do NOT favor affiliation at all with the SI.
The SI itself is still a solid organization of the global left. They officially support the various anti-capitalist movements around the world. The SI calls for the international abolition of the death penalty. The SI favors every country adopting some kind of pro-environmental policies. They also favor canceling debts in many of the 3rd world nations. While being impartial (playing nice) on the Israeli-Palestinian Crises, the SI are taking issues with Israel on its "apartheid wall," the killing of Hamas' spiritual leader several months ago, the unjustified occupation of the West Bank, and many of the horrible actions committed by Israel today. They still support negotiation as the key answer through their support of the Israeli Labour Party and Yachad (which is the successor to Meretz and now called the Israeli Social Democratic Peace and Civil Rights Party) and Fetah,which is Palestine's social democratic organization in the not yet born state of Palestine. It is also important to remember that the SI opposed the US led action of war on Iraq last year. Virtually every SI member party opposed the war. Even inside the British Labour Party itself, Tony Blair and his supporters were at odds with the majority of the party in the House of Commons, the various CLPs, and the grassroots socialists that are in reality the majority of Labour.
There are many anti-3rd Way parties within the SI today. This includes the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Sandinistas (FSLN) of Nicaragua, the New Zealand Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, and the Swedish Social Democratic Party. None of them are ideologically pure, and they are actually far from being ideologically pure. But these parties made their societies light years ahead with their reforms in comparison of the miseries caused by the ultra-captialism in the United States. In order for the SI to lean further to the left, I would hope that the Swedish Left Party, the Dutch Socialist Party, the German Party for Democratic Socialism, the Freedom and Solidarity Party of Turkey, and the Brazilian Worker's Party would join or at least obtain observer status inside the SI. I favor observer status presently for the SPUSA inside the SI. But my views differ from some (perhaps many) in the membership. We have decent anti-SI folks in the party like our International secretary (Bill Pelz). Bill Pelz has established close ties with many left-socialist (non SI democratic-socialist-parties) as well as a few SI parties. The SP currently will not officially marry up with any foreign party. In the UK, Bill Pelz know people that represent the left-wing inside the British Labour Party. He knows and keeps in contact with the Socialist Campaign Group, Tony Benn, Ken Livingtone, and many active socialists inside Labour. He's contributed to the Belgium magazine called "Spectre" which is an international journal dedicated to the left-socialist movement worldwide. I don't know how he feel about observer status for the SI, so I'll need to ask him about this. The one thing I can say, however, is that I hope to see a 2004 Americanized version of the 1974 Carnation Revolution of Portugal.
The one good thing that can be said for the SI, especially today, is that they done plenty to make more than just a Eurosoicialist entity. Many African nations and nations in Latin America are getting very involved as well. The SI took the lead in the fight against Apartheid, and Nelson Mandela's party, the African National Congress is a member. In the Carribbean in the 1970s, Prime Minister Michael Manley of Jamaica took a stand against American pressue. The US gave the (socialist) People's National Party government a hard time for Jamaica trying to get rid of poverty and having the "audacity" to befriend Cuba. And of course, Senator Ruben Barrious Martinez of the Puerto Rican Independence Party is still one of the most respected leaders of the Independence movement. He was successful in the United States closing down the military base on the island of Vieques. By the way, I have some distant relatives on Vieques. Anyway, Martinez is with the Puerto Rican Independence Party which struggles for an independent Puerto Rico and for social-democratic justice for the people of Puerto Rico. Chile's government that was destroyed by the US government in 1973 was also affiliated with the SI. Today, that same Socialist Party came back to power several years ago which is a symbolic rejection of Augusto Pinochet's fascist reign of terror which lasted from 1973 until 1990. The Movement Toward Socialism organization in Venezuela is an observer status member of the SI. The MTS supports the justice and reforms of Hugo Chavez. Sadly, the Bush Administration is trying to destroy the democratic-socialist government of Venezuela. And of course, let's not forget America's northern neighbor, Canada. On June 28, the New Democratic Party did fairly well. They picked up 5 seats in the House of Commons from 14 to 19. They could have won more; however, the Liberals in Canada did to the people what American Democrats do here. They scare the left into supporting them in fear of a Republican victory. It worked similarly in Canada except that Canada's electorate are too the left of Americans. They will vote for the Liberals, the Greens, Quebec de Bloc, or the NDP before they would ever vote Torie. The Tories were rejected, while the Liberals are barely haning on to power. The Liberals NEEDS the socialist NDP to have an effective minority led government. This means that the Liberals will have to succumb to the leftist demands of the New Democratic Party. Damn, this email is longer than I wanted it to be. Comment, if you will.
For Bread, Red Roses, and Peaceful Revolutions!
Melvin Little (US supporter of the left-wing inside the British Labour Party)
Socialist Party USA
Democratic Socialists of America
American Civil Liberties Union
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 204
MICHAEL CHEWTER WRITES:
Thanks for the information John. It is certainly a challenge to our language skills. As you say, some of the groups from outside Europe look interesting, but, for the most part, they are barely even centrists.
If Angus and Paul are hoping to build a revolutionary international movement on the basis of this lot, then they are seriously deluding themselves.
Of course Angus they will be more progressive than many UN states, It is alleged to be a list of left-wing parties, after all. The challenge is to establish minimum standards of democratic practice for UN members. No doubt most of them are also more progressive than the UK's closes allies in world affairs, but that is not saying much since New Labour have allied themselves with the far right.
Those who saw the results of the Newsnight poll last night, showing Labour ahead of the Tories on the major issues, may well be reflecting on the implications of this for the future leadership- of both parties.
Michael
Hosted by the Expel Melvin Little web server.