What's the Difference?
redflag
DECEMBER 1998
VOL. 108 NO. 9
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
In answer to the many inquiries we receive about the differences
between the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) and other organizations
and "tendencies" describing themselves as socialist, we offer
the following necessarily brief summation:
'COMMUNISTS'
This group is typified by the Communist Party USA, which was set
up in 1919 following the Bolshevik Revolution.
For decades the CPUSA emulated the former Soviet Union and
accumulated a history of slavishly echoing Kremlin politics and
objectives. It contended that the Soviet Union was a socialist
society and aimed to establish a similar system in America. But
the Soviet system had nothing in common with the classless,
stateless organization of the associated producers envisioned by
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The Soviet economy was highly
stratified and bureaucratically administered in the interests of
a privileged class of officials. It was organized under the
control of a suffocating state apparatus controlled by a
Communist Party that included just 5 percent of the population.
The CPUSA fell into disarray after the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991.
'TROTSKYISM'
Before 1991, this group was typified by the Socialist Workers
Party. "Trotskyism" finds its roots in the intraparty quarrels
between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky during the 1920s. While
differing with the CP over certain measures taken by the
Stalinist regime--most particularly the ouster of Trotsky from
the inner circles of the Russian Communist Party--Trotskyist
aims are virtually identical to those of the Communist Party.
Since 1991, the SWP appears to have lost its former preeminence
among Trotskyist groups and has taken to admiring Fidel Castro
and the Cuban Communist Party. Nonetheless, the numerous
Trotskyist splinter groups continue to envision a society in
which the state controls the industries and a Trotskyist-
dominated party controls the state.
'SOCIAL DEMOCRACY'
"Social Democracy" in America, which dates from 1901, found its
first organized expression in the Socialist Party. The SP
combined the Social Democratic Party of Eugene Debs in the West
with a reformist element that broke off from the SLP. The SP
collapsed completely after World War II. A resuscitated version,
the SPUSA, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) typify
this "tendency" today.
"Social Democrats" argue that socialism is something that will
come about in the distant future or is something akin to what
exists in Sweden or Norway today. These groups have no basic
criticism of the capitalist system. They advocate various
reforms as the solution to the problems confronting working
people today. They are the modern-day representatives of what
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels described as "conservative or
bourgeois socialism" in their famous COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.
*
All these organizations have two common denominators, both of
which differentiate them from the Marxist SLP.
The first denominator is their common acceptance of the validity
and desirability of reforms. Thus, although all of them maintain
that some kind of "socialism" is their objective, the
realization of socialism is not considered possible for an
indefinite period in the future. For the present, they say, the
thing to do is to work for social reform, i.e., measures that
will allegedly alleviate the suffering of the workers.
One of the reform parties, the SWP, denies that it is reformist.
But the only difference between it and the reformist SPUSA and
DSA on this point is that the SWP attempts to disguise its
reform demands as "partial steps" or "transitional measures."
They're still reforms.
The SLP holds that capitalism is not worth reforming and that,
in any case, it cannot be reformed so as really to improve the
workers' condition, or protect them from capitalism's recurring
depressions and wars, or from displacement by automation.
Moreover, as long as workers are deluded by the hope of
"improved conditions" under capitalism they will turn to the
party they think can deliver the goods--the Democratic Party.
And the Democratic Party is in the reform business precisely to
divert the workers from a revolutionary socialist solution to
their problems, and to preserve capitalism. Franklin Roosevelt
put it this way: "Reform if you would preserve."
The SLP grasps the fact that revolutions are not made, but that
they come, that capitalism itself is bound to create the
revolutionary crisis that will ultimately set the working class
into motion. It holds, therefore, that it is the duty of a bona
fide party of socialism always to hold the issue of the
abolition of wage slavery up before the workers clip and clear,
and to expose reforms as delusions where they are not concealed
measures of reaction.
The second common denominator of the parties claiming to be
"socialist" is that their concept of socialism is one in which
industry is nationalized and administered by the state.
But the SLP agrees with Marx that "the existence of the state is
inseparable from the existence of slavery." When the state takes
over all that really happens is that the workers, who remain
wage slaves, exchange one master, the private capitalists, for
another, the bureaucrat. This definitely is NOT socialism.
In contrast to the "radical" reformist parties, the SLP program
calls for abolition of the political state with its geographic
constituencies and instruments of coercion, and the creation of
an industrial union government, an administration resting on
industrial constituencies. Only when the means of production are
owned socially and administered democratically by the workers
will we have genuine socialism.
The differences between Marxism-De Leonism (which the SLP alone
represents), "communism" and "bourgeois socialism" are
fundamental. For the reasons stated, the SLP has nothing in
common with them. However, the best way to compare the
differences between organizations is to study carefully the
history, the literature, the policies and the objectives of
each.
"Again--the saying is common that he who knows only one language
knows none. With even better reason is it to be held that he who
knows only one party knows none. The SLP in line with its policy
of enlightenment, makes it a point...to acquaint all whom it
reaches with the existence and policy of all the other political
parties. No 'Chinese wall' hems in the mind that SLP propaganda
quickens to thought." (Daniel De Leon, 1911.)
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by using our
gopher on the Internet at gopher://gopher.slp.org:7019/
Access our web page at http://www.slp.org
Richard Pond
Thanks, red. I can read this one.
Maybe I'll even comment later.
WOTWUnite
>knows none. With even better reason is it to be held that he who
>knows only one party knows none. The SLP in line with its policy
>of enlightenment, makes it a point...to acquaint all whom it
>reaches with the existence and policy of all the other political
>parties. No 'Chinese wall' hems in the mind that SLP propaganda
>quickens to thought." (Daniel De Leon, 1911.)
>
It's a shame that the SLP doesn't believe in being truthful in their portrayels
of other parties. What good is it to mention other parties if you are going to
lie about what they stand for?
redflag
>
> >"Again--the saying is common that he who knows only one language
> >knows none. With even better reason is it to be held that he who
> >knows only one party knows none. The SLP in line with its policy
> >of enlightenment, makes it a point...to acquaint all whom it
> >reaches with the existence and policy of all the other political
> >parties. No 'Chinese wall' hems in the mind that SLP propaganda
> >quickens to thought." (Daniel De Leon, 1911.)
> >
>
> portrayels of other parties. What good is it to mention other parties
> if you are going to lie about what they stand for?
I would like to know what exactly you think is untruthful
about the SLP's comparison between itself and other parties.
Be specific, please.
WOTWUnite
article from the People which we could read from their website if we really
wanted to read the things, asked me to point out what I think is untruthful
about what the SLP says about other parties. I will gladly reply.
>'SOCIAL DEMOCRACY'
>
>"Social Democracy" in America, which dates from 1901, found its
>first organized expression in the Socialist Party.
Historical error. Predates 1901.
>
>"Social Democrats" argue that socialism is something that will
>come about in the distant future or is something akin to what
>exists in Sweden or Norway today.
I don't know a single person in the SPUSA who argues that socialism is
something akin to what exists in Sweden and Norway. Never have seen it in their
paper either, that I can recall. So where do you get this from? As for it being
somewhere in the distant future, I don't know. How long is the distant future?
How about over a hundred years? Because that's about how long DeLeon has been
saying that the revolution is right around the corner and we haven't seen it
yet. So I guess you are right in that evaluation, but it just shows how wrong
DeLeon was.
These groups have no basic
>criticism of the capitalist system.
Really? You obviously don't read their papers, or read their statement of
principles, etc. So what are you basing this on? I would admit that they don't
believe in the flow chart socialism of the SLP but that doesn't mean theuy do
not have basic criticisms of capitalism.
They advocate various
>reforms as the solution to the problems confronting working
>people today.
Advocate reforms in the short term, and advocate socialism in the long term.
Kind of forgot that important second part, didn't you?
>
>The first denominator is their common acceptance of the validity
>and desirability of reforms. Thus, although all of them maintain
>that some kind of "socialism" is their objective, the
>realization of socialism is not considered possible for an
>indefinite period in the future.
So the SLP believes that the socialist revolution will (or at least can)happen
tomorrow? Talk about utopianists. Or if the SLP was being honest, wouldn't they
admit that they have no idea either when the revolution will happen, and that
it will be sometime in an "indefinite period in the history?"
>For the present, they say, the
>thing to do is to work for social reform, i.e., measures that
>will allegedly alleviate the suffering of the workers.
As much as I might not like the United States, and for whatever reason, social
reform has helped alleviate the suffering of a great many workers. I know that
means you would have to be objective to realize that, but it's true. I can say
that even with all of my complaints of capitalism, because history (which
Marxists claim to want to use except when it doesn't fit into their models) has
shown that to be true.
>The differences between Marxism-De Leonism (which the SLP alone
>represents),
And yet other groups say they represent it as well, no?
Regards,
Shannon
"the good times will come"
redflag
>
> Redflag, who never actually writes anything interesting, just sends reprints of
> article from the People which we could read from their website if we really
> wanted to read the things, asked me to point out what I think is untruthful
> about what the SLP says about other parties. I will gladly reply.
>
> >
> >"Social Democracy" in America, which dates from 1901, found its
> >first organized expression in the Socialist Party.
>
Note that the articles says that "Social Democracy" in America
dates back to 1901. The "Social Democracy" referred to here is
the Kautskian type, not the genuine article.
>
> >
> >"Social Democrats" argue that socialism is something that will
> >come about in the distant future or is something akin to what
> >exists in Sweden or Norway today.
>
> I don't know a single person in the SPUSA who argues that socialism is
> something akin to what exists in Sweden and Norway. Never have seen it in their
> paper either, that I can recall. So where do you get this from? As for it being
> somewhere in the distant future, I don't know. How long is the distant future?
> How about over a hundred years? Because that's about how long DeLeon has been
> saying that the revolution is right around the corner and we haven't seen it
> yet. So I guess you are right in that evaluation, but it just shows how wrong
> DeLeon was.
Some things can take a long time to happen. Some people of
extraordinary intelligence and vision can see those things coming
from far away. What De Leon saw, and what the SLP can see now, is that
the material conditions for socialism existed in the days of De Leon
and they certainly exist today. Then why don't we have socialism
already?
I believe it's because the working class, the only social class
capable of putting an end to capitalism and building socialism,
has been fooled time after time by the capitalist class and the
many reformers that have promised improved conditions via reform.
The revolution that will abolish capitalism and build a system
of industrial democracy IS around the corner. The working class
needs to begin moving in the direction of that corner in order
to turn it. Instead of supporting capitalist politicians
posing as "friends of Labor" and supporting reform measures
that create false illusions of improved conditions under
capitalism, socialists need to trace an accurate and truthful
roadmap that shows what "around the corner" ought to look
like once we get there and the best path to take to reach it.
The SLP, with its limited resources, has been doing that
for 100 years and more!
>
> These groups have no basic
> >criticism of the capitalist system.
>
> Really? You obviously don't read their papers, or read their statement of
> principles, etc. So what are you basing this on? I would admit that they don't
> believe in the flow chart socialism of the SLP but that doesn't mean theuy do
> not have basic criticisms of capitalism.
You offer no examples to refute our claim.
In this newsgroup there are those claiming that Senator Wellstone is
a socialist and that socialists and workers in general ought to
support him in his bid for the presidency. Those making that outlandish
claim have no basic criticism of capitalism and neither does
Senator Wellstone. Senator Wellstone is a living example of
the "Social Democracy" we are referring to.
>
> They advocate various
> >reforms as the solution to the problems confronting working
> >people today.
>
> Advocate reforms in the short term, and advocate socialism in the long term.
> Kind of forgot that important second part, didn't you?
No we didn't.
>
> >
> >The first denominator is their common acceptance of the validity
> >and desirability of reforms. Thus, although all of them maintain
> >that some kind of "socialism" is their objective, the
> >realization of socialism is not considered possible for an
> >indefinite period in the future.
>
> So the SLP believes that the socialist revolution will (or at least can)happen
> tomorrow? Talk about utopianists. Or if the SLP was being honest, wouldn't they
> admit that they have no idea either when the revolution will happen, and that
> it will be sometime in an "indefinite period in the history?"
You miss the point. The "programs" that "Social Democrats" advocate
are at best ambiguous as to how they would lead to socialism.
The are unclear as to how state ownership and "Social Democratic"
political control of the state would translate into genuine democratic
worker control over society. In that sense, the objective is socialism
is placed in an indefinite point in history.
The SLP's Socialist Industrial Union program, illustrated in general
terms by a chart we often publish in our paper, The People, shows
how the various industrial union councils would relate to each other
and to the All-Industry Council elected to coordinate and oversee
industrial activity in general. Check out the URL in this post
for more information.
>
> >For the present, they say, the
> >thing to do is to work for social reform, i.e., measures that
> >will allegedly alleviate the suffering of the workers.
>
> As much as I might not like the United States, and for whatever reason, social
> reform has helped alleviate the suffering of a great many workers.
More accurately, it has *palliated* their suffering but never removed
it or addressed its economic and social cause.
It has succeded in fostering the illusion that things can permanently
improve under capitalism and has sapped any revolutionary desires
from the great number of workers you refer to.
> I know that
> means you would have to be objective to realize that, but it's true. I can say
> that even with all of my complaints of capitalism, because history (which
> Marxists claim to want to use except when it doesn't fit into their models) has
> shown that to be true.
There you go, you claim that "Social Democrats" *do* have a basic
criticism
of capitalism, identify yourself as one and go on to prove that you
have no basic criticism of capitalism. You only have "complaints" of
capitalism. In other words, you are in basic agreement with capitalism?
Shaun Richman
redflag wrote:
> The revolution that will abolish capitalism and build a system
> of industrial democracy IS around the corner. The working class
> needs to begin moving in the direction of that corner in order
> to turn it. Instead of supporting capitalist politicians
> posing as "friends of Labor" and supporting reform measures
> that create false illusions of improved conditions under
> capitalism, socialists need to trace an accurate and truthful
> roadmap that shows what "around the corner" ought to look
> like once we get there and the best path to take to reach it.
> The SLP, with its limited resources, has been doing that
> for 100 years and more!
WOTWUnite is a good friend of mine and I can predict how he will respond
to this. "I like you because you're more utopian than me."
> You offer no examples to refute our claim.
> In this newsgroup there are those claiming that Senator Wellstone is
> a socialist and that socialists and workers in general ought to
> support him in his bid for the presidency. Those making that outlandish
> claim have no basic criticism of capitalism and neither does
> Senator Wellstone. Senator Wellstone is a living example of
> the "Social Democracy" we are referring to.
That was some idiot who breezed through every moderately left newsgroup
to post his tripe. He's not one of us, and not welcome.
> The SLP's Socialist Industrial Union program, illustrated in general
> terms by a chart we often publish in our paper, The People, shows
> how the various industrial union councils would relate to each other
> and to the All-Industry Council elected to coordinate and oversee
> industrial activity in general. Check out the URL in this post
> for more information.
I've read the pamphlets on SIU, and I most admit it's quite convincing,
and the only attractive thing about the SLP. My question to you is what
are you doing to put your program into place? Arguing with a bunch of
"social democrats" on a newsgroup. Are your members in organized labor?
Is that too too bourgeois for you? Is the real reason you pick fights
with the Socialist Party the fact that we are active and vital and you
are not?
--
Shaun Richman
Young People's Socialist League
339 LaFayette Street, New York, NY 10012
phone/fax: 1(212)892-4586
http://sp-usa.org/ypsl
"The Torch" 31 Winter Edition out now!
E-mail for a free copy!
redflag
> I've read the pamphlets on SIU, and I most admit it's quite convincing,
> and the only attractive thing about the SLP. My question to you is what
> are you doing to put your program into place? Arguing with a bunch of
> "social democrats" on a newsgroup. Are your members in organized labor?
> Is that too too bourgeois for you? Is the real reason you pick fights
> with the Socialist Party the fact that we are active and vital and you
> are not?
Who's aruing? I posted a recent article from "The People" and was
replying to your friend's followup.
Public discussion of this kind should be encouraged because there
are many undecided people who read these groups in the hope of
gaining a better understanding of socialist principles. I am opposed
to running anyone off from any public forum because his or
her ideas may be unpopular.
The SLP represents the only viable alternative to all the other
groups calling themselves socialist because it has a program for
achieving socialism.
Socialist Industrial Unionism is the thing, and without it the SLP
would be just like any other organization that may have numbers
but lacks the revolutionary principles that will move the
working class into action.
If you agree with the SLP in matters of socialist principle
such as the Law of Value, the class struggle and the revolutionary
destiny of the working class, then you must agree with the
socialist industrial union concept of government such as
the SLP advocates. If that is the case, you are wrong party
and ought to hasten to join and help build the SLP because
THAT is where you belong.
"It is a very important thing to develop the economic power,
to have a sound economic organization. This has been the
inherent weakness in the labor movement of the United
States. We need, and sorely need, a revolutionary economic
organization. We must develop this kind of strength; it is
the kind that we will have occasion to use in due time, and
it is the kind that will not fail us when the crisis comes. So
we shall organize and continue to organize the political field
and I am of those that believe that the day is near at hand
when we shall have one great revolutionary economic organ-
ization of the working class and one great revolutionary
political party of the working class. Then will proceed with
increased impetus the work of education and organization that
will culminate in emancipation."
--Eugene V. Debs
Shaun Richman
bash the SP-USA, but make yourself look bad in the process. You've got a
program, but since you declined to answer my question about how you're
working towards it I can only assume that you are doing nothing. Hell, I
don't have to assume. I never see SLPers at demos, strikes or any mass
actions. You are jealous of the Socialist Party which is gaining hundreds
of members a year because it is vital and active, which you are dying a
slow death because you are not.
> --
> "Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
> with criticism of existing property relations."
>
> Access The People on-line by using our
> gopher on the Internet at gopher://gopher.slp.org:7019/
> Access our web page at http://www.slp.org
--
WOTWUnite
>> >
>> >"Social Democracy" in America, which dates from 1901, found its
>> >first organized expression in the Socialist Party.
>>
>> Historical error. Predates 1901.
>
>Note that the articles says that "Social Democracy" in America
>dates back to 1901. The "Social Democracy" referred to here is
>the Kautskian type, not the genuine article.
I note it. And note as well that you are still wrong. I also note that you
never mention Kautsky in your original post. If you want to define "Social
Democracy" a certain way, it is to your benefit to fully define it. 1901 was
simply the year that various groups merged to form the Socialist Party. Since
those groups existed prior to that year in America, and since you would most
likely, as far as I can tell, label them "Social Democrats," your date is still
wrong. Doesn't really change what you say really, I'll admit that, it's just a
historical error. But if you care to explain why the Social Democratic Party
(which is one of the groups that merged, and which existed prior to the
twentieth century) doesn't fit your definition, I'd be more than happy to hear
it.
>
>>
>> >
>> >"Social Democrats" argue that socialism is something that will
>> >come about in the distant future or is something akin to what
>> >exists in Sweden or Norway today.
>>
>> I don't know a single person in the SPUSA who argues that socialism is
>> something akin to what exists in Sweden and Norway. Never have seen it in
>their
>> paper either, that I can recall. So where do you get this from?
I also note that you completely failed to address this. You asked me to give
specific examples about why I think your post mischaracterizies other parties,
yet when I do, you ignore them. Again, you said the SPUSA argues that socialism
is something akin to Norway or Sweden today. I ask you to prove that.
As for it
>being
>> somewhere in the distant future, I don't know. How long is the distant
>future?
>> How about over a hundred years? Because that's about how long DeLeon has
>been
>> saying that the revolution is right around the corner and we haven't seen
>it
>> yet. So I guess you are right in that evaluation, but it just shows how
>wrong
>> DeLeon was.
>
>
>Some things can take a long time to happen.
Yes, they do. But don't you think there's a bit of a difference between "some
things can take a long time to happen" and "it's just around the corner?"
Again, if we were living in DeLeon's time and I said "Socialism will not happen
in my lifetime, but in some indefinite time period in the future" you would
call me a Social Democrat and say that "No, it's just around the corner." Well,
it's a hundred years later, and do we have socialism in the US? Nope, but the
SLP is still saying it's just around the corner. History has proven Marx and
DeLeon wrong, at least on their assumptions on how quickly socialism would
come.
Some people of
>extraordinary intelligence and vision can see those things coming
>from far away. What De Leon saw, and what the SLP can see now, is that
>the material conditions for socialism existed in the days of De Leon
>and they certainly exist today. Then why don't we have socialism
>already?
>I believe it's because the working class, the only social class
>capable of putting an end to capitalism and building socialism,
>has been fooled time after time by the capitalist class and the
>many reformers that have promised improved conditions via reform.
Isn't this strange? When socialism doesn't come, who do you blame it on? The
workers themselves, and you say they are too stupid to know what's good for
them. Kind of strange for a socialist to say, don't you think? If the material
conditions existed in DeLeon's time, then why should I believe that now is when
socialism "is just around the corner?" If DeLeon was of such extraordinary
intelligence, then why did he get the coming of socialism so wrong? Over a
hundred years later and still no socialism. I have read alot of DeLeon wrote.
He was indeed a very intelligent man. But he was wrong on this point.
>
>The revolution that will abolish capitalism and build a system
>of industrial democracy IS around the corner.
Hey, will you let me borrow that Milton Bradley Ouija Board of yours. I think
I'll play the lotto come next Saturday. Prove it. Give me a date. Will it be
ten years? Fifty? Hundred? And where do the years simply become an "indefinite
time period in the future?" Because it's already been over a hundred years
since the SLP first said that socialism " is just around the corner." Exactly
how big is this corner? You remind me a bit of the first century Christians who
honestly believed that Christ would return in their lifetime. When that didn't
happen, they came up with new excuses. Much like you do. And so 2,000 years
later, we still have Christians who say that the return is just around the
corner. I prefer to be honest with people. Socialism might come to the US next
year or in a hundred years. I honestly don't know. All I ask is that you be
honest as well. You simply don't know and that scares you. Why? I'm not quite
sure, but I think it has similiarities with those early Christians. The second
you stop saying "It IS right around the corner" is the second you might have to
admit that your dogma is wrong. So again I ask, if the SLP has been saying that
socialism "is right around the corner" for well over a hundred years now, can
you really say with certainity that it is? Or will a hundred years from now
you'll still be saying it with no shame?
The working class
>needs to begin moving in the direction of that corner in order
>to turn it.
No arguement from me. But you haven't proven that it will happen anytime soon.
Instead of supporting capitalist politicians
>posing as "friends of Labor" and supporting reform measures
>that create false illusions of improved conditions under
>capitalism, socialists need to trace an accurate and truthful
>roadmap that shows what "around the corner" ought to look
>like once we get there and the best path to take to reach it.
>The SLP, with its limited resources, has been doing that
>for 100 years and more!
How can you prove to me that the "friends of labor" will not keep creating
false illusions for another five hundred years? If they have been doing it this
long, what's to stop them from doing it even longer? If they do, will you keep
saying that socialism "is right around the corner?" You see comrade, you have
yet to prove that socialism really is right around the corner, you've simply
given excuses on why the SLP has been wrong for over a hundred years now.
>
>>
>> These groups have no basic
>> >criticism of the capitalist system.
>>
>> Really? You obviously don't read their papers, or read their statement of
>> principles, etc. So what are you basing this on? I would admit that they
>don't
>> believe in the flow chart socialism of the SLP but that doesn't mean theuy
>do
>> not have basic criticisms of capitalism.
>
>You offer no examples to refute our claim.
Comrade, I am not the one who has to offer examples to refute your claim. You
made the claim and I called you on it. You made the statement and now I am
asking you to show me proof that what you say is true. If what you say is
true, then it should be easy for you to show me how they don't have any basic
criticisms of capitalism. If you would like, I will go get you the statement of
principles of the SP and other documents, but do you really want me to? I
wanted to spare you the embarrasment of showing that you have no idea what you
are talking about and can't back it up. So please answer my question. Show me
that they don't have basic criticisms of capitalism. You asked me to point out
some things that I thought were not true, and, out of common respect, I did. I
ask you for that same respect, and ask that you answer my questions.
>In this newsgroup there are those claiming that Senator Wellstone is
>a socialist and that socialists and workers in general ought to
>support him in his bid for the presidency. Those making that outlandish
>claim have no basic criticism of capitalism and neither does
>Senator Wellstone. Senator Wellstone is a living example of
>the "Social Democracy" we are referring to.
Do you really want to use this example? Let's. Everyone that I can identify
with being with the SP on the newsgroup has said they do not support the
campaign of Wellstone. Since you call me a Social Democrat later in your post,
let me just say that I as well oppose the Wellstone campaign. I have shown you
proof now that at least people of the groups you claim are Social Democrats
oppose what you call "Social Democracy" and to best of my knowledge, the SP has
not come out in favor of a Wellstone campaign. Remember, you have to prove that
the groups you accuse of "Social Democracy" actually support it. Even if we use
your own definition in this case, you are failing miserably in your case, and
are proving that I was right in your mischaracterization of certain parties.
>
>>
>> They advocate various
>> >reforms as the solution to the problems confronting working
>> >people today.
>>
>> Advocate reforms in the short term, and advocate socialism in the long
>term.
>> Kind of forgot that important second part, didn't you?
>
>No we didn't.
Really? Here are your own words:
They advocate various
>reforms as the solution to the problems confronting working
>people today.
You say they advocate reforms as "THE SOLUTION." This is simply not true. They
advocate socialism as the solution. Let me give you a litte analogy. Let's say
I have one hell of a tooth ache. I go to one doctor and he says I need a root
canal. I ask him what about the pain now, and he says simply that a root canal
is the solution to my problem. I go to a second dentist and he as well says
that I need a root canal. So I ask him what about the pain now, and he offers
me some Benzacane ( a local pain killer.) They both say that a root canal is
what I need. But the second one is willing to look at my immediate suffering
and do something about it. Just because he is willing to ease my pain now
doesn't blind him to the fact that a root canal is the real solution to my
problem. So it is with the SP. You lie and say that the SP says the Benzacane
is "THE" solution, when nothing could be further from the truth. Whether we
agree on whether reforms are preferable or not is not really the point. The
point is that you mischaracterize what groups like the SP believe and that was
my original objection to your post.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >The first denominator is their common acceptance of the validity
>> >and desirability of reforms. Thus, although all of them maintain
>> >that some kind of "socialism" is their objective, the
>> >realization of socialism is not considered possible for an
>> >indefinite period in the future.
>>
>> So the SLP believes that the socialist revolution will (or at least
>can)happen
>> tomorrow? Talk about utopianists. Or if the SLP was being honest, wouldn't
>they
>> admit that they have no idea either when the revolution will happen, and
>that
>> it will be sometime in an "indefinite period in the history?"
>
>You miss the point. The "programs" that "Social Democrats" advocate
>are at best ambiguous as to how they would lead to socialism.
>The are unclear as to how state ownership and "Social Democratic"
>political control of the state would translate into genuine democratic
>worker control over society. In that sense, the objective is socialism
>is placed in an indefinite point in history.
I hate to tell you this, but just because you come up with a clever chart, it
doesn't make socialism "right around the corner." I am not missing the point at
all. I am showing that you mischaracterize other groups. OK, say I come up with
this totally unambigious plan about how we will get socialism. My plan is that
my fairy godmother will one day wave her wand and we will have socialism.
Nothing ambigious about it. Just because that's my plan doesn't mean it is
going to happen to "right around the corner." So it is with the SLP's program.
Of course, my pretend plan has an advantage. It hasn't been proven wrong yet.
The SLP has been saying for over a hundred years that socialism "is just around
the corner" and guess what, history kind of shows the opposite.
>
>The SLP's Socialist Industrial Union program, illustrated in general
>terms by a chart we often publish in our paper, The People, shows
>how the various industrial union councils would relate to each other
>and to the All-Industry Council elected to coordinate and oversee
>industrial activity in general. Check out the URL in this post
>for more information.
But this chart, clever as it is, doesn't prove that socialism is right around
the corner. Nor does it prove that the groups you name don't have basic
criticisms of capitalism. I admit you're doing a wonderful job of trying to
convince me of how great the SLP program is, but that's not the point. The
point is you mischaracterize other groups, and when I ask you to address my
objections, you just give me talk about what the SLP will do. I have seen the
charts. I subscribed to the People for several years. I know what DeLeon and
the SLP says. But I am asking you to specifically address my questions.
>
>>
>> >For the present, they say, the
>> >thing to do is to work for social reform, i.e., measures that
>> >will allegedly alleviate the suffering of the workers.
>>
>> As much as I might not like the United States, and for whatever reason,
>social
>> reform has helped alleviate the suffering of a great many workers.
>
>More accurately, it has *palliated* their suffering but never removed
>it or addressed its economic and social cause.
Well, since one of the definitions of "palliate" is "alleviate" perhaps you can
tell me where what I said was wrong. I did not say that it removed the economic
or social cause of suffering, did I? Nope. But again, you haven't addressed my
original question and that is you have yet to prove that groups such as the SP
see such reform as "THE SOLUTION" (words from your own post) and that they have
no basic criticism of capitalism.
>
>> I know that
>> means you would have to be objective to realize that, but it's true. I can
>say
>> that even with all of my complaints of capitalism, because history (which
>> Marxists claim to want to use except when it doesn't fit into their models)
>has
>> shown that to be true.
>
>There you go, you claim that "Social Democrats" *do* have a basic
>criticism
>of capitalism, identify yourself as one and go on to prove that you
>have no basic criticism of capitalism. You only have "complaints" of
>capitalism. In other words, you are in basic agreement with capitalism?
You must type standing up, no? Because since you just pulled that last
paragraph out of your ass, I know it must hurt to sit down. Comrade, I ask for
simple respect. Or does the SLP not allow that? Where do I indentify myself as
a Social Democrat? Because I challenge your mischaracterizations of them that
makes me one? So if if you made a statement like "Nazis killed three zillion in
WW2" and I objected to that, then I would be a Nazi? And even if I grant you
the laughable notion of labeling me a Social Democrat, then guess what, you
still haven't proved that groups like the SP don't have basic criticisms of
capitalism. Would you like to adress that?
How did I prove that I have no basic criticisms of capitalism? Because you
think that because I use the word "complaints" that somehow I am in agreement
with capitalism. Perhaps you need to take a close look at a dictionary.(I used
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged) One of the definitions of "complain" says
"to find fault with." Look at this, "criticize" has the exact same definition.
What's kind of interesting though is that "criticize" has at its definitions
also "to find merit with." "Complain" does not have that definition. So using
word choice, who actually is more in favor of capitalism? You, who has to find
fault and merit, or me, who only has to find fault. Also, nothing that I can
find in any derivative of the word "criticize" has any connotation of agreeing
or disagreeing with what you criticize. That is, you can criticize something
and agree with it, or you can criticize something and disagree with it. Guess
what? You can have criticisms of capitalism, and still be in agreement with it.
And just because I use the word "complaints," it doesn't mean either agrement
or disagreement. It simply means I find fault with. So no, I am not in basic
agreement with capitalism, and whether I am or not, you still haven't proved
that the groups you talk about don't have any basic criticisms of capitalism.
Since you took so long, I actually expected more from you. I didn't think you
would stoop so low as to use semantics (which even that you failed at) to try
to somehow justify your position, which to be honest was kind of warped at what
you tried to do. The whole calling me a Social Democrat to be clever really
backfired. Well, guess what? You still didn't answer my original questions, and
you have yet to prove that the parties you label as Social Democrats are really
what you say they are. I am more than willing to debate with you about
socialism, capitalism, and what not. But could you please be a comrade, and
when you ask me to show what I object to, and I go through the trouble of
showing you, could you please address those questions?
Also, I would like to note that you failed to address the following question as
well.
>The differences between Marxism-De Leonism (which the SLP alone
>represents),
And yet other groups say they represent it as well, no?
Regards,
Shannon
"the good time will come"
WOTWUnite
>"It is a very important thing to develop the economic power,
>to have a sound economic organization. This has been the
>inherent weakness in the labor movement of the United
>States. We need, and sorely need, a revolutionary economic
>organization. We must develop this kind of strength; it is
>the kind that we will have occasion to use in due time, and
>it is the kind that will not fail us when the crisis comes. So
>we shall organize and continue to organize the political field
>and I am of those that believe that the day is near at hand
>when we shall have one great revolutionary economic organ-
>ization of the working class and one great revolutionary
>political party of the working class. Then will proceed with
>increased impetus the work of education and organization that
>will culminate in emancipation."
> --Eugene V. Debs
Kind of strange to quote someone as a defense of your program who explicitly
rejected the SLP, don't you think?
redflag
> You are jealous of the Socialist Party which is gaining hundreds
> of members a year because it is vital and active, which you are dying a
> slow death because you are not.
I am certain that this is no way to conduct a political discussion.
Jealousy plays no role in the SLP's analysis of the differences between
the SP, SDP, SWP and itself.
Using your logic, it could be argued that the SLP calls for the
abolition of capitalism because we are "jealous" of capitalists'
success.
Socialists oppose capitalism not because they envy anything about
the capitalist, but because the realize that the wealth that capitalists
enjoy is plundered from the toil of the working class and because this
causes unnecessary suffering among the proletariat.
Socialists call for the establisment of socialism because we are
convinced that it is the next logical step in social evolution and
because its continued postponement will likely lead to a social
catastrophe that will throw society into another Dark Age.
Likewise, in response to many who write in to inquire about the
difference
between the SLP and all other parties calling themselves socialist,
the SLP offers this analysis in an objective and dispassionate manner,
hoping to enlighten and encourage our readers to find out for themselves
by studying the literature of all the parties, including the SLP's.
The SLP is not jealous of any other group calling itself socialist.
The SLP knows it is right. It knows that its program is the correct
program for achieving socialism.
I hope you will recognize that you've used a fallacious argument.
"We know not, and care not whether the SLP will
be THE party or not. This much, however, is certain.
If another party will be necessary, then the birth,
vigor and efficiency of that party will depend upon
the good work put in now upon the only party that
holds and lives up to, practices and preaches, the
principles essential to the emancipation of the work-
ing class. As the lightening that goes up in the east
is immediately seen in the west, so also, should the
necessity for such another party rise above the
horizon, that necessity will find none to dispute it.
Until such time, however, the present scanning of
the horizon for the new party can only have the ef-
fect to promote the individualistic conceit of pet-
ty minds, each of whom will try to set up his party
in the gambler's hope that it may chance to be the
right future one. Work in the living present."
--Daniel De Leon, "Letter Box,"
Daily People, May 5, 1901.
Shaun Richman
"dispassionate". You (and your friend Guy Marsh on the other groups) are
quite clearly relishing attacking any member of the SP you can find, by
(as WOTWUnite has quite clearly pointed out time and again)
mischaracterizing what the SP stands for. And you repeat these lies to
take a few swipes at the SP. If you were debating the small but important
differences between our parties in a comradely and truthful manner
perhaps I would change my analysis. As it is now you're green with envy.
redflag wrote:
>
> Shaun Richman wrote:
>
> > You are jealous of the Socialist Party which is gaining hundreds
> > of members a year because it is vital and active, which you are dying a
> > slow death because you are not.
>
> I am certain that this is no way to conduct a political discussion.
>
> Jealousy plays no role in the SLP's analysis of the differences between
> the SP, SDP, SWP and itself.
[snip]
> Likewise, in response to many who write in to inquire about the
> difference
> between the SLP and all other parties calling themselves socialist,
> the SLP offers this analysis in an objective and dispassionate manner,
> hoping to enlighten and encourage our readers to find out for themselves
> by studying the literature of all the parties, including the SLP's.
>
--