What the Socialist Party Cannot Do

David McReynolds

Independent electoral action is important - it is part of the process of social change. I wish we had something like a Labor Party in the US, in which we would [be] able to provide a thoughtful socialist critique.

What the Socialist Party cannot be is a political party in the usual sense, in a contest for power within the nation. The highest our vote ever got was 5% with Debs as the candidate, at a time when socialists deeply believed "socialism was on the horizon", that the Socialist Party of 1912, 1916, and 1920 was about to push aside the major parties, as the Republicans had at the time of Lincoln, and would become the genuine party of the working class.

But by the end of the 1920's Debs himself had begun to talk about the need for a Labor Party. Even at the time of the Great Depression, under the able leadership of Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party could not revive its fortunes. We have carried our past with us like a burden - thinking "we can do it", "if a new crisis comes, we will have our chance".

What is needed is a sense of reality. The Socialist Party as a national political party will not replace the major parties. Such a view is a dangerous daydream diverting us from what we might really do. And as proof we can look back at two examples, if our own example will not serve. The Socialist Labor Party, now pretty much disintegrated, (and was the political grouping, headed by De Leon, from which we came) ran national tickets (and state and local tickets) year after year. Their first ticket ran in 1892, the last national ticket was in 1976. The SLP was not a reformist party - it was Marxist, and the thinking of De Leon was serious. But they failed. At no time did they even match the performance of the Socialist Party.

The other example is the Socialist Workers Party, formed as a Trotskyist split from the Communist Party. The SWP ran candidates in every election from 1940 to the present. Like the SLP, they have never become a significant electoral force. The SLP has disintegrated, the SWP has become something of a cult. Both are marginal groups - a danger that faces us.

Those who believe we "must" run a national ticket need to ask where the support of labor would be in the next race, where the African American, Asian, Hispanic communities would be, where the Gay/Lesbian community will look. Where the peace movement will look.

I do not think it will be to us.

When we began, at the turn of the last century, we had a real base in labor - even into the 1940's we retained serious support within parts of the labor movement. We had, along with the Communist Party, helped organize the trade union movement, and played a key role in the formation of the CIO. We played an active, honest role in the long struggle of the rights of African Americans. (So did the Communist Party). But we have almost no real "base" today in the labor movement or in the various communities of color - they do not look to use for political leadership, and they are much more likely to think in terms of the Democratic Party when it comes to voting. We can deplore that, we can stomp our feet, tear our hair, and scream - but the main movements for peace and social justice look to the Democrats or, in some cases, to the Greens. I wish this was not so. I agree the two major parties share in common a support for the capitalist system.

(They are not "identical" as we sometimes say - there are differences between the two parties. At times - 2004 was an example - there was a real choice.)

The reason for running a national ticket - and I did this twice, in 1980 and in 2000 - is mainly to give a human face to socialism, to help inject the concept of socialism into the public dialogue. But it will not lead to our becoming a major party of our own.

It was very hard in 1980 to get on the ballot. I believe today it is much harder. I had an easier time getting media coverage in 1980 than in 2000, when the New York Times - to take one example - didn’t even provide "pro forma" coverage.

Those who argue for a national ticket need to ask these questions:

1. Do you know which states the Socialist Party can get on the ballot in a Presidential race?(Remember that even the Libertarian Party, which has managed to obtain ballot status in almost every state, was not able to get into the debates and it is very hard for us to get into debates when we are not on enough ballots to have even a theoretical chance of winning.)

2. Are you personally going to work on the campaign? (and I mean let’s get serious, are you really going to do it, regardless of whether or not your own favorite candidate wins the nomination)

In this connection I would note that Eric Chester and Susan Dorazio, who had not supported my nomination in 2000 (Chester had run against me for the nomination) worked hard on my campaign in New England, something I appreciated. In contrast we all remember the pain of the referendum after Walt Brown was chosen at the 2003 convention and supporters of two of the defeated candidates launched a referendum to overturn the convention’s choice. The referendum failed, but it left the party bitterly divided to this day. People need to agree in advance not only to work on a national campaign, but to support the candidate, even if it isn’t the one they wanted). My own position is that I think it unwise to run a campaign so I would not expect to support whoever was chosen.

3. Do you realize how much money is needed? Do you have any way of helping to raise the money?

4. The final question is whether "independent electoral action" must always mean running a Socialist Party candidate on the Socialist Party ticket. It was a sad mistake in 2006 for the National Committee not to enthusiastically embrace the New York campaign of Howie Hawkins, running for US Senate on the Green ticket. (Howie was a member of the SP). And there has been too much fuss by a handful of those on the national committee about whether the campaigns are "socialist" enough. When I ran as the Green Party candidate for US Senate in 2004 in New York I made it very clear I was a socialist, and a member of the Socialist Party, but the issue in that campaign was the Iraq War, and I focused my campaign on that - with no apologies.

In the 2004 election I voted for Ralph Nader because he was on the ballot in New York State and Walt Brown wasn’t. I knew that John Kerry would take the state. But if I had been in Ohio or any other "close" state I would have voted for Kerry. Not because I thought he had terrific politics - but because I thought George Bush really had to be defeated and this was one of those times when the "lesser evil" was better. I don’t ask that we all agree on this, but that we have more respect for differences and disagreements. We are not a monolithic party, not a democratic centralist party. No one who voted for Kerry in 2004 committed a mortal sin.

5. What if we did not run a national ticket? Isn’t it possible for comrades to run in local and state elections where the requirements are less? Where one is more likely to recruit members, and where, most important, one can build a base. After all, this is not impossible. Bernie Sanders ran for Mayor of Burlington as an "independent socialist", then he ran for US Congress on the same basis and won again, and finally he is now in the US Senate as the only in independent socialist there. Do I agree with all of Bernie's positions? No I don’t. But am I glad he is there? Yes. And do I think he proves my point that it is possible for someone such as Greg Pason to think in terms of building a coalition of forces strong enough to win office in New Jersey. Yes, he does.