Talk:Socialist Party of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election box metadata[edit]

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.


Use of "left"[edit]

The use of the words "left" or "leftist" and "right" or "rightist" in this article is confusing. For example, if by "left" you intend to mean Trotskyist, which appears to be the case in at least a few instances, you should go ahead and use "Trotskyist" instead of "left". Spleeman 10:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can you fix it, Spleeman? It sounds like you have the proper knowledge! - DavidWBrooks 13:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I shall when I find the time. :) Spleeman
Yes, I agree..."During the 1930's the party experienced growth particularly among youth and turned leftwards politically." - I think most people would make the assumption that the SP was ALWAYS "leftward", at least somewhere on the left end of the spectrum. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the Socialist Party of America is only "left wing", not far left, then what does it take to be regarded as far left?Royalcourtier (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shachtman[edit]

Is it fair to say (as we do, after a recent edit), "... right-Shachtmanites and their allies... renamed it the Social Democrats USA... in pursuit of their strategy of realignment in American politics which sought to realign the Democratic Party on a pro-labor and pro-civil rights basis"? Seems to me that by this time the Shachtmanites were barely pro-labor or pro-civil rights, and barely even Democrats rather than Republicans. If anything, they were more centrist that George McGovern, who the Democrats had just run for president. I'm not expert on this particular period in the party's, or Shachtman's, career, but this rings wrong to me. -- Jmabel 22:31, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Too little early history[edit]

Like lots of other articles on the left, this has a Fourth International bias: we have one paragraph on the first 18 years of the SP, when it was close to being a mass party, followed by several paragraphs on the split that gave rise to the CPUSA, which say more about the CP than the SP, and then more on the entry of the Trotskyists, the departure of the SWP, the incursions of the Shachtmanites, etc., etc. I appreciate the joy of sects just as much as the next person, but this article does not do justice to the subject. Somebody–not me–ought to rewrite it.

We should also be on the alert for words such as "hysterically," particularly when used in the construction "less hysterically." It's bad enough to use an overwrought, non-analytic word such as that (see Orwell's famous essay on this sort of left cliches) to condemn the followers of Max Shachtman, but to use it in a way that damns the Harrington crowd almost as an afterthought seems especially gratuitous.

I'm equally ignorant about the ins and outs of Shachtman's career, but I think Jmabel is probably right. But I think we have bigger fish to fry when rewriting this piece: "sewer socialism," nativism, the party's relations to the AFL and the IWW, etc. -- Italo Svevo aka 24.126.41.116 03:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do[edit]

I'm going to be hitting this page pretty hard here, there is a great deal more that needs to be added to tell the story properly. The early stuff isn't as sexy as some of the 1920s-30s stuff; nor is it as hotly disputed and invigorating as the later stuff -- but it does really need to be done.

—T Carrite (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Weinstein or Bell or Shannon, the history before 1919 is far more interesting as well as more significant for the Socialist Party itself. Between, say, 1924 and 1940, most Party members had given up the idea that they could win a major election alone without joining in a Farmer-Labor or similar left-wing alliance. (See, for example, New York City mayoralty elections#Collapse of the Socialist Party vote.) Anthologies such as Albert Fried's or H. Wayne Morgan's have relatively little SP material after about 1920. It's important, of course, to see the Socialist Party as the origin of other left-wing movements such as the Communists and Trotskyists, but that's looking backwards through the telescope. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, that the Debsian SPA of 1908-1912 was the most significant for the party in its own right. But in terms of pure pizazz, 1919 and the rumbling factional politics of 1933-38 are much more "sexy" stories to tell... —t Carrite (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuation[edit]

"That most of these figures went on to become the founders of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a key Cold War liberal organization, is seen by some historians as a barometer of the true nature of American liberalism and to have precipitated the rise of neoconservatism."

  • "some historians" (uncited) ==> weasel words
  • "the true nature of American liberalism" ==> in this context reads like redbaiting
  • "to have precipitated the rise of neoconservatism" ==> <sarcasm>Why, because the Shachtmanites were left out of the ADA?</sarcasm>

If there is something citable from some actual historian who makes this argument, I guess something like this could be returned to the article with citation. Until that time, I am changing this to just "Most of these figures went on to become the founders of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a key Cold War liberal organization." - Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting your edit stand, but what I meant there was, yes, if you like, "redbaiting", and it anticipated neoconservatism because it first articulated the "vital center" ideology of which the neocons eventually emerged as the most militant defenders.
Jacrosse 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of meaning[edit]

I have now twice reverted an uncommented change by User:Jacrosse, which more or less reversed the meaning of a sentence. Jacrosse, what is the basis for your edit? Are you saying this is inaccurate, or what? If you just want to reword, the new wording should preserve the meaning, not reverse it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse, would you please discuss this rather than just edit-warring. Your edit summary this time at least gives a rationale: "No one joined the party because of the Russian Revolution, and most of the language federations left with the CP, in fact I believe the Workmen's Circle (Jewish) was the only one which didn't." I believe you have your chronology wrong. Please read the section Socialist Party of America#Expulsion of supporters of Bolshevism. The language federations grew during the period of the Revolution; they might have been on the verge of taking over the party; instead, they split to form the Communist Party of America. This is told in more detail at Communist Party USA#Formation and early history (1919-1921). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else please come into this, since Jacrosse is continuing to revert me, arguing through edit summaries, but not joining discussion here on the talk page? He has produced no facts, and is inserting a version that is almost certainly factually wrong in that it asserts that "The party's opposition to World War I caused a decline … especially among its language federations. This is the opposite of the truth. Opposition to the war caused a loss of votes in its traditional, more Americanized base. The Russian Revolution brought new recruits to the language federations, although those were soon lost to the nascent Communist Party of America, as explained in the next section. Perhaps the old wording could be improved, but Jacrosse's new wording is simply false. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why its so terrible that I feel it sufficient to respond in the edit summary and not here. But I'll simply repeat what I said before - it is seriously misleading to say that the party had a spike in membership from those groups because they were joining not the SP but the nascent CP.
Jacrosse 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were joining the SP, with the intention of taking it over. Then they had a change of plans. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be partly a copyediting problem, needs to be tied in with section below, also some actual data would help. Fred Bauder 20:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the idea of calling the Bolshevists leftists in the context of "they expelled the leftists", it implies that the SPA was not leftist, and it definitely was very leftist. --Revolución hablar ver 23:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling websites?[edit]

I see that the site rooted at http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/index.html and the one rooted at http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/index.html are extremely parallel (though not quite identical) in content. I notice that all of our external links now go to the latter. Does anyone know what is going on here, and how these sites relate to one another? - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sites are not in competition, but suffer from clunky web design. The Early American Marxism history project originally appeared on the Marxists Internet Archive at http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/index.html. After a year or so (and about a year ago) the EAM migrated to its own site at http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/index.html. The Marxist Internet Archive continues to mirror the newly posted EAM material. However, some of the older material seems to have been removed from MIA with the migration and there are some gaps in the mirroring of the new material. This complicates our ability to link to these archives. I try to correct bad links to http://www.marxists.org with a google search of http://www.marxisthistory.org when I come across them. Its worth doing because the material is otherwise unavailable outside a research library microfilm archive. DJ Silverfish 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the other side, EAM is basically my reading notes in extremely long form for book research, put up publicly in case they're of use to others. I'm always adding to this stuff and the changes don't migrate to MIA rapidly or at all. So while the latter may be prettier than the former (due to the crap WYSIWYG web software I use), the former is certainly more comprehensive than the latter.

Tim Davenport/EAM Carrite (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent Vanity Posting[edit]

I removed some unsourced and therefore unverifiable claims of a revival that were inserted first into the introduction, and then in a lengthy section called "Awakening". No source is offered for the claims, which seems like it would have resulted in a press release by somebody, or a mention on the Leftist Trainspotters site. Anyway, it would be incorrect to integrate the revival of the name by a handful of activists into the main article, even if they were largely members of successor organizations. Any new organization would be completely different than the historic party and would have to be handled as such. DJ Silverfish 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed External Links[edit]

In keeping with the logic from DJ Silverfish, I have removed external links to the new Socialist Party of America, including links to allegedly affiliated locals. I am unaware of the situation in Pennsylvania, but the Socialist Party of Florida has not affiliated with the new SPA. Chegitz guevara 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pennsylvania: You may wish to consult your minutes for the next year, where your NC purged the entire Pennsylvania organization, because of its having a chair who was cooperating with social democrats. Not playing very nicey, nicey, that! How clever to denounce the social democrats as "democratic centralists", and then plagiarize this slander on Wikipedia without even a notice stating, btw, "we are officers/inmates of this organization and we are playing at settling old scores at that most important of all class struggles, Wikipedia!" What a revolutionary act!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statement[edit]

The two parties eventually merged in 1921 to form the predecessor of the Communist Party USA.

To someone familiar with the history: this should list which two parties within that sentence; or at the least, within that paragraph. thanks, Richard Myers 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of members[edit]

Really should each have a citation. In any case, I've cut the recently added claim that Leon Trotsky was a member, although it's imaginable that he was briefly so. I'd like to see a citation (and an indication of what years he was a member) before adding that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Life isn't clear -- in it Trotsky attacks the SP during his time in New York as a bunch of Babbitts, but then talks about "the connections and influence of the Socialist party as a whole, and of our revolutionary wing in particular". Either way, he probably wasn't a significant figure in the SP, since he was only ever in the US for a few months. I guess he should stay off the list.
As for the others, most of them have articles that discuss their involvement with the SP. Should prioritize citations for those that don't. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, the list of SP members here is "clean" -- no glaring errors. It's hard or impossible to document them all, but I can certify all the early names from that list, at least. Carrite (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing first lines[edit]

Current phrasing is "This article is about the political organization (sometimes called the Socialist Party, USA) which existed from 1901 to 1973. For a successor party started in 1972, see Socialist Party, USA. For other socialist parties, see Socialist Party (disambiguation)."

This is very, very confusing wording. I have pamphlets calling the SPA "Socialist Party of the United States" (1920s, although it was used as early as the 1910s in party publications) and "Socialist Party, USA" (1935!) — but does the fact that multiple names were used need to appear in THE VERY FIRST LINE that a visitor will see? I think not. Similarly, while it is true that a user COULD find links to successor organizations in the Box on the right, many do not look at these cumbersome boxes at all — I know that I don't. Why not put the links in plain English in the first line? Let's clean up the multiple names for the party with a nice, early footnote!

Similarly, is it really necessary to indicate that SPUSA "started in 1972"? Is it not sufficient to say:

"This article is about the political organization which existed from 1901 to 1973. For successor parties, see Social Democrats, USA and Socialist Party, USA." ???

Tim Davenport --- Corvallis, OR --- Carrite (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna put up the simplified version. If I've made my case, let it stand; if not, let's talk... — Carrite (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1967-8 little red membership card—signed by Natl Chairman Darlington Hoopes and Natl Sec. George Woywod—and dues notices from about 1968, from the "Socialist Party USA" (legally, the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation). The problem is that some clarification is necessary for those looking for "Socialist Party, U.S.A." since they (who might know very little) might be looking for either organization. The SPUSA (1972) date isn't necessary except to distinguish it from the 1901 one. The difficulty is in doing that in the clearest, most useful way. [For some hints on different ways of using "For" and "Other Uses" templates (hatnotes) see Template:Otheruses and its links.] —— Shakescene (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current incarnation of SPUSA used that name until 1973 and later; there was another factional name in currency in 1972 — then when the main faction changed the name to Social Democrats USA, they grabbed it. It seems pretty simple to identify one from the other if we use 1973 as the point of demarcation — the so-called Socialist Party of America terminating at that date into three succeeding branches, available HERE, HERE, and HERE. etc. --- I don't dispute in the least that the Socialist Party called itself "Socialist Party USA" in the 1960s and 1970s (see footnote 1, just added) — like I say, I've got a 1935 pamphlet, by Paul Porter, I think, that lists "Socialist Party USA" as the publisher. But let's keep things as simple as possible in the very first line — concentrating on the period, not the name (formal or common) of the organization.
Tim Davenport --- Corvallis, OR --- Carrite (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Want to Split This Thing?[edit]

It's getting pretty damned long, and Debsian electoral politics are barely touched at this point... Should there be subarticles for each of the periods? Should the bibliography be linked off on a separate page? --Carrite (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole article needs to be shortened and re-balanced, but then the question arises of which longer sub-articles can justify standing alone (certainly the Debsian party to about 1920 could stand by itself, but I don't know about later periods). For parallels and contrasts in treatment, see (for example) the mother articles History of New York City, War of 1812 and World War II. Specialized bibliographies would in general follow the subjects they treat.
An alternative method might be topical, e.g. Socialist electoral campaigns, the Socialist Party and labor, the Socialist Party and war, etc. (cf. H. Wayne Morgan's anthology of American Socialism, 1900-1960 (Prentice-Hall Spectrum Series). —— Shakescene (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the periodization is pretty good the way it sits. Which is not to say that things couldn't be approached topically -- but that would crunch the chronological approach, which is pretty essential since the SP was AT LEAST 3 different organizations just during the 1901-1956 interval (Debsian Party and Old Guard Party of 1901-1934/36; Militant All-Inclusive Party of 1934-1937; Norman Thomas dominated organization from 1937 up to the merger in the 1950s.) Eventually, I think each period being spun off into its own page with short summaries left in place is probably the way to play it. //////////// The very first period still needs to be rewritten and probably will wind up growing by a factor of 3 or 4, I would guess. And I'm sure the later periods could stand being beefed up, too -- but I'm pretty much going to take the story to WWII or so and that's it for me (I'm essentially a 1920s guy). Carrite (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Tim[reply]

Error in Magazine Refs[edit]

The List of Newspapers & Magazines includes a Jump to "New Times" which brings up an entry discussing a Rock album and not a publication unless this iscorrectedit should be deleted LAWinans (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, jump to "Truth" supposedly a Duluth-based publication brings up a general discussion of the concept of "Truth" LAWinans (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of the blue (live) wikilinks were misdirected, e.g. New Age and Comrade. I've fixed most of them, but where it's too complicated to create a red link (empty title) because there's already a journal somewhere else with the same name (e.g. Pearson's or New Age (magazine)), I've just removed the wikilink. Someone else can, if he or she desires, create an unambiguous red wikilink (like The Truth (Duluth)) to suit his or her tastes.
It would also be helpful for someone to make sure that there's a sufficient disambiguation link at the top (hatnote) of articles with the same basic title, e.g. Appeal to Reason or Masses. (Fixing what I've just fixed was enough work for one session.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of America/Socialist Party USA[edit]

On the article for the Socialist Party USA, it says that the Socialist Party of America changed its name in the 1960s to "Socialist Party USA." But when the party drafted a new constitution in 1973, Wikipedia consideres the party to have stopped existing and considers the Socialist Party USA to have been created. Most experts on socialism and the media consider the party that exists now to be the same party that existed before 1973. Wouldn't be simpler to say that the Socialist Party of America and the Socialist Party USA is the same party and merge the two articles? It seems to me that they are the same party; they just changed their name in 1962, and adopted a new party constitution in 1973. I propose that we merge the two articles and call the new article "Socialist Party (United States)". Sbrianhicks (talk) 18 December 2009

¶ It's nowhere near that simple. (There may be something in the relevant articles that needs rewriting in order to make this inherently-confusing situation clearer.)

  1. There was organizational continuity from the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation (which often also called itself the "Socialist Party USA") to the Socialist Party of America-Democratic Socialist Federation (a merger of the SP-SDF with the DSF in 1972) to Social Democrats, USA (a renaming in 1973). The leaders of what would be SDUSA had led the SP-SDF and won several convention votes and membership referenda on the merger and renaming. The same National Office continued at 1182 Broadway with the same National Secretary (Joan Suall), the same staff, the same treasury, the same membership lists and the same seat in the Socialist International. [See Michael Harrington's memoir, The Long-Distance Runner, for an account of how DSA finally got its own seat in the International against vigorous opposition from SDUSA and its allies in the AFL-CIO. The present SPUSA has never had more than an associate membership.] Joan Suall's husband, Irwin Suall, (who managed the ADL) explained informally when the SP-DSF was renaming itself SDUSA, that its lawyers had carefully retained SP-SDF as the name of a (nominal) educational or historical spin-off in order to prevent the name going up for grabs to any left-wing faction. Another editor here has said (check the relevant talk pages) that in the early 1970s SDUSA in fact was able to use legal threats to keep the current SPUSA from using (or in SDUSA's view misappropriating) the name "Socialist Party of America".
  2. Both the Debs Caucus (which became the SPUSA) and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC, later merged with the New American Movement to form DSA) organized outside SDUSA in 1972–1973, and most of their members left SDUSA at the same time. It was only after the SP-DSF had renamed itself Social Democrats, USA, that the Debs Caucus, from the outside of their former party, assumed the name "Socialist Party, USA". At the time of the splits, DSOC had the largest membership, followed by SDUSA, followed by a much-smaller Debs Caucus.
  3. However, there is a broad parallel between the democratic socialism and third-party politics of the Socialist Party of the 1930's and the current SPUSA's, which is why they feel entitled (as much as, or indeed more than, any other group) to their name. But just merging the two articles would just confuse things, letting what had been a small tail wag the much larger dogs (SDUSA and DSA) which were also democratic-socialist/social-democratic but preferred to work within the Democratic Party.
  4. Were I to organize the articles from scratch, I might well continue the old SP into SDUSA (even though I was on the losing side in 1971-73 and helped to form DSOC). But it's clear that this would introduce a different kind of confusion, so although it's awkward, it's probably just as well to end the SP article at 1973 when it was renamed.
  5. Glad to answer any questions that I can. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that since the SDUSA and the DSA completely changed their name and gave up on electoral politics, they could not be considered a continuation of the SPA. The Socialist Party USA keeps the same name ("Socialist Party"), runs candidates for office, and keeps many of the original ideas of the SPA. (talk) 19 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There's certainly a similarity, and many of the early members of what is now the SP-USA had earlier belonged to the SP-SDF (e.g. Samuel Friedman and David McReynolds). But you are in fact talking about two different, though historically-connected organizations. The Wikipedia articles for the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) and the Progressive Party (United States, 1924) should not be merged, even though some members of La Follette's party supported Henry Wallace's. What you say about the DSA and SDUSA leaving third-party politics (not electoral politics) is an argument for not merging their articles with the Socialist Party (1901) one. But in fact a clear majority of that Socialist Party had decided against running outside the Democratic Party by 1960 (when they ran no Presidential candidate), and this was ratified by the victory of the Realignment Caucus over the Debs Caucus in the 1960's. (The Realignment Caucus would later break into the Unity and the Coalition Caucuses, because while both worked within the Democratic Party, the Democrats themselves had split over the Vietnam War and social issues after the 1964 victories of LBJ and the Civil Rights Act.) The current Socialist Party is as entitled as any other democratic-left group to view itself as the true inheritor of Socialist Party traditions, but they would be those of a pre-1960 or pre-1950 Socialist Party without the subsequent history where a majority of their comrades turned away from their electoral strategy. For Wikipedia to treat the two organizations as one is to rewrite history and to take sides in a decades-old dispute. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my thinking is this: The Socialist Party is the only one of the three split off groups to keep the name "Socialist Party", it has kept The Socialist as its publication, it has kept YPSL, and so on. It really does seem to me that it is the same party. (talk) 20 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree they should be separate since the party essentially split in three: one group was the legal successor of the SP, another group has taken the SP's membership in SI and a third group remains a political party. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SDUSA was the majority faction at the 1972 convention. If any one of the three can be said to be the "successor," it would be that group. DSOC was the second-largest faction, and the group that became SPUSA the smallest. Obviously, SPUSA is the group MOST SIMILAR to the original SPA, but they don't have a "more legitimate" line of succession by any stretch of the imagination. The way things are drawn up now, as if the original organization terminated with the end of the 1972 convention, is the best way to avoid a factional food fight. But one can very definitely make the case that SDUSA won the mantle at the 1972 convention and carried it forward. No such case can really be made for SPUSA though, despite their organizational similarity. Carrite (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent members[edit]

Could someone please check the list of prominent members. I noticed that Joshua Muravchik and Erich Fromm were delegates to the 1966 convention, but do not know if they were members. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one was a voting delegate, one had to be a party member. Fromm was German, so he may have been a fraternal delegate or something, he would not have been a party member. Carrite (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, he was in New York for over a decade, he could well have been a member. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist mayors[edit]

Somebody was asking me about Socialists elected mayor, damned if I can remember who. I'll start a little list here as I come across them that can be used by whomever for whatever. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election of 1913:
D.S. Brace — Conneaut, OH.
Fred HInkle — Hamilton, OH
No name given but Socialists won — Bicknell, IN; Haledon, NJ; Coshocton, OH; Canal Dover, OH.
Sitting Mayor George R. Lunn defetated — Schenectady.
Sitting Socialist Mayors lost to fusion candidates — Crookston, MN and Thief River Falls, MN
It was me. --TIAYN (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start that list here, because the late, great James Weinstein created extensive (although possibly not exhaustive) tables of Socialist elected officials at the state and municipal level in his magisterial The Decline of Socialism in America, 1912–1925 (Chapter 2, Tables 2 and 3). On the other hand, it's worthwhile to extend that list backwards before 1911 (under the SP's predecessors) and forwards after 1920 (e.g. Reading and Milwaukee). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State, local elected socialists[edit]

There needs to be a list of state and local elected socialists, not just the mayors. Dogru144 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky, Bukharin, Kollontai[edit]

Does anybody have any evidence at all that these three were duespayers in SPA? Trotsky would be the most likely of the three, Kollontai was just here briefly as a speaker... The extant Novyi Mir film doesn't pick up till 1917, so that's no help... I propose that we delete those 3 from the list — or at least Bukharin and Kollontai — unless some evidence appears that they were SPA duespayers. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first ran across them in this capacity in Theodore Draper's Roots of American Communism. Perhaps that book would clarify their status. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent members[edit]

I don't disagree with the idea that the list of prominent members of the SPA needs to be split off to its own page. See: List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America.

I do think that the current "half length, quadruple detail" version is distinctly less readable and less usable than an alphabetized set of hot links.

I also have misgivings about the double listing on the List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America page...

I'd suggest that the ENTIRE prominent members section be ported over to the new List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America page or else the old laundry list be restored.

It is important to have SOME sort of list, however, since all the biographies need a certain number of WP "in-links" to avoid being tagged as orphans. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts.
  1. Every member listed in this article has also been listed (twice) in the List of prominent members. So there's nothing lost; the question is what (if anything) should remain. Originally, I was thinking of just listing about 25-30 as about the limit of what an ordinary reader would want to absorb without going to a specialized list. I think I'll go ahead and prune from this article's list (but not the stand-alone one) members not known, either internally or externally, for their Socialist Party activities, such as Bukharin and Reinhold Niebuhr (?), although it's probably not a bad idea to leave a representative name or two, such as Helen Keller, to show the breadth of Socialist appeal.
  2. I don't see a problem with double-listing. For an analogy, think of something like History of New York City, which is a summary review article linking together 8 or 10 articles devoted to specific periods; the summary will of course duplicate the most salient, important or interesting names and facts from the specialized article.
  3. Maybe I should just cut the descriptions and move some of them into the empty spaces in the Annotated List. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please remember that while you and I may have the script that lets you preview an article by mousing over its wikilink, only a very small proportion of registered editors have enabled this feature, and registered editors themselves are a tiny fraction of those who actually read Wikipedia articles. There's no way for an ordinary reader to figure out who in the world was James Maurer besides clicking the link, leaving (unless they know how to use tabbed browsing) the Socialist Party page, and opening the Wikipedia bio for James Maurer, before re-opening the SP page. It's hardly surprising that studies have found that very few people go to this kind of trouble. So while hints like "social reformer", "writer" or "labor leader" clutter up the list on this page, they might be useful in the Annotated List on the List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the "mousing over" feature is that you have; all I get is the name of the link in a box...
Go to Special:Preferences, open the Gadgets tab, and check "Navigation popups". They should make your work here perceptibly easier. (But I'm sorry I made the assumption; while it only reinforces my point, that point doesn't seem to apply here.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway.......... An annotated list of names on the page just clutters, I think. Let's just move it all off onto the other page and drop the biggest names into the narrative for links here. As for the other page, doubling things up is going to lead to a disaster. How about a single laundry list with birth/death dates and no more than four or five words of description. Maurer = Pennsylvania labor leader and politician, etc. Then that list in no more than two columns...

My thoughts anyway. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPUSA history pamphlet[edit]

Dear editors,

I have rewritten the history so that it avoids close paraphrasing of paragraphs from the "history" published by the Socialist Party USA.

Here are the parallel passages that I eliminated:

*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman ....

In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party.

The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party.

  • WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist .... Shachtman and his lieutenant [[Michael Harrington[1]]] advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization.[1]
  • SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators.

  • WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protesters outside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates.[2][3]
  • SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice.

  • SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party....

  • SPUSA At the end of 1972, ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.
  • WP: Socialist Party USA (not Socialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.[4]

*SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics),

  • WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively[5][6] and judicially[7] entrenched two-party system.
  • SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ...
  • WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent ....[8]

Some of these parallelisms are trifling. However, some seem more substantial, and the series of them seemed to call for more extensive rewriting, so that we are sure of being in compliance with WP policy.

I want to draw your attention to a more serious issue—that I believe that many of the assertions were in error, and understandably given that they seemed to originate in the SPUSA history, may have resulted in NPOV/RS issues. I have tried to be fair in rewriting some of the history, and have asked for reviews from a number of other editors, but I would appreciate your help in helping the article reach NPOV.

I believe that some of the editors here have declared that they have been associated with SPUSA, in compliance with WP:COI policy and in good faith. One of our editors has declared being a member of SPUSA, SDUSA, and DSA! I should do no less and declare that I have strong admiration for and indeed warm feelings for Michael Harrington, and that such affections may influence my editing.

I thank all of our editors for their contributions to this article. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (ce 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Specifics of revision[edit]

At risk of discord, I would like to point out some changes I made that seem to me important, and which may well irritate our editors with the strongest SPUSA ties, regretfully.

This was the old article's statement:

Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. [2]

This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA).[9]

I would rather let my revisions, which have received helpful editing by a number of other talented editors, speak for themselves rather than lay out a long critique. Of course, I would welcome any comments or criticisms of the edits, and hope that you all would not be shy with correcting me.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ A Century of Struggle: Socialist Party USA, 1901-2001. New York: Socialist Party USA, n.d. [2001]. http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/literature/spusa-history.pdf
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference SPRI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Drucker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Busky 2000, pp. 164.
  5. ^ Winger, Richard. "Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System," in Multiparty Politics in America, Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)
  6. ^ Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gerber, Alan. "The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections," Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 no. 2 (1996)
  7. ^ Fitts, Michael A. "Back to the Future: Enduring Dilemmas Revealed in the Supreme Court's Treatment of Political Parties", in The U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral Process (2nd ed.) David K. Ryden, ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002 ISBN 9780878408863 pp. 103-105 and passim
  8. ^ Minutes of October 2006 Socialist Party National Committee meeting.
  9. ^ "Socialist Party Now the Social Democrats, U.S.A." The New York Times. December 31, 1972. Retrieved February 8, 2010.(Pay-fee for article)

DraperDrucker's book.[edit]

It was late when I wrote before, and I wrote "Draper" instead of "Drucker".
Why the sign "Draper" slid over the signified Drucker: Both Draper brothers were serious independent scholars, with Hal being a Trotskyssant Marxist socialist to the left of Shachtman (and translator of Heinrich Heine). Peter Drucker has been the world's leading business-management writer, since the 1930-1950s or so. A younger Peter Drucker is a member of the Trotskyssant organization Solidarity, and this Drucker has written a fine biography of Shachtman.

As noted previously, DraperPeter Drucker's biography of Shachtman is an excellent resource. Here are 3 facts from Drucker:

  1. P. 288. Shachtman emphasized the working-class and labor unions as the core agents of socialist liberation, his "version of Marxist orthodoxy", from which Harrington drifted as he first considered and then emphasized middle-class activists (p. 288).
  2. P. 305. McReynolds quit the SP in 1970. (McReynolds's SPUSA-Oregon blog states repeatedly that he quite in 1971, I'll note. I've seen several newspaper accounts from 1970 quoting McReynolds as leaving then, so I believe his memory has bumped his resignation forward a year.)
  3. P. 307: The majority and Harrington's caucus had opposing viewpoints in nearly every issue of New America.

IMHO, the first (1) fits better in articles on Shachtman or on Harrington. This article is about the SPA, not about two "theorists". The second (2) could be added. DraperDrucker states that McReynolds was the leader of the left-wing, but he doesn't state how large it was (e.g. 1966-1971) or call it the "Debs caucus". The third (3) is not enlightening. It would be better to expand on the substance of the debates rather than stating that there were disagreements.

In short, noting that McReynolds quit in 1970 is fine. However, most of the sources ignore the Debs caucus, so it's hard to explain any/the significance of McReynolds, without doing OR. The Debs caucus stuck around through 1972, at least. (It would be of interest to find out estimates of overlap between the 3 organizations.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistaken use of "Draper" (for "Drucker") was contagious! Another reminder to use the most reliable, high quality sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to figure out why you have such an axe to grind against Hal Draper's book or mention of the Debs Caucus. I'm certainly not claiming Draper's book as the last word on the subject, but that does not warrant wholesale dropping of all cited, referenced content on the history of these groups from the Vietnam War onward and replacing it wholesale with your content. Based on source *you* favor and which could be equally accused of being partisan. If you can make a case that the sources used are so highly biased compared to other sources then *maybe* you might have some justification for throwing out prior work, but I don't think your claims rise to that level. That you do this coupled with personal attacks and groundless accusations of plagiarism in particular raises alarm bells. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drucker's biography of Shachtman should be used to improve the WP article on Shachtman, particularly correcting the COI/RS/WEIGHT errors now (from the use of unreliable Trotskyist literature, which does not meet the standards of e.g. Hal Draper). It gives insight into Shachtman's role in the SP, but discusses almost nothing the end of the SP, because Shachtman was so old it seems his actions were limited to writing letters, phone calls, and personal conversations.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew[edit]

I can't really follow the food fight. In my opinion there are now too many pictures for the amount of text in the late period and that either Zimmerman or Rustin should go. An expansion of discussion of the 1950s and inclusion of a Shachtman photo of that era to fill in with the text might be appropriate.

It would be nice if similar energy was placed in expanding the 1900-1917 story that has been concentrated on the 1970s story. The former is about 10 times more important than the latter, from a historical perspective... Let's keep the 1970s food fight to the introductions of the various successor groups if we could — K. Wolf has done a very nice job of explaining the mentalité of the SDUSA on that greatly expanded page. The DSOC and SPUSA perspectives have their own places. The war is over, let's keep it civil and everything in its place. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite and other editors!:
Most of your comments concern the early 1970s, which you refer to as the "food fight".
  1. If you wish to remove one picture, please remove Zimmerman's. (Zimmerman died soon after 1973.) Rustin's role in the civil rights movement and SDUSA merits more attention than Zimmerman's role (who is known mainly for his role in the ILGWU, which seems to have dominated the SP in the late 60s and early 70s).
  2. All three caucuses later organizations should be mentioned. I trust that some brief mention of the relative sizes of their predecessors has been reasonable: Does anybody have any reliable sources giving votes on previous National Committees or on resolutions at previous conventions. (In particular, perhaps the Debs caucus had more votes when McReynolds was active in the SP?)
  3. The article discusses the Vietnam War. However, it does not discuss the debates over "new politics" versus "working class" politics, which seems to have been an even greater issue. (Some sources discuss divisions between Reuther's UAW and Meany's AFL-CIO, but this is too simplistic: E.g., Sam Fishman, later head of the AFL-CIO in Michigan, was associated with SDUSA.) It would also be difficult to present this debate to a mainstream audience, particularly of US readers.
  4. The DSOC article is based too much on Harrington's memoirs. It needs a discussion of Democratic Agenda (1978 Democratic midterm convention) and something about draft registration, which seem to have been its most notable activities.
  5. I would love to learn more about the early years of the SPUSA. Can anybody find a reliable high quality source and write some narrative?
Regarding the early 1900s, I have little interest and (in Sweden) almost no resources to help.
Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 13:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite: I have been falsely accused of plagiarism, and that was used as a pretext for wholesale removal and replacement of everything I had contributed to this article. That is not what I would call "civil" in any sense of the word. I would not object if KW had simply added material. However I do not see where wholesale removal of material was in any sense justified. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington's resolution[edit]

Can anyone provide a link to Harrington's December 1973 Vietnam resolution? The article currently states "Harrington's proposal for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces was defeated", which is sourced to a contemporaneous brief NYT article. The NYT actually says he "introduced a resolution that would have called for United States acceptance of the October cease-fire agreement on Vietnam and for immediate withdrawal of American forces."[2] TFD (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFD,
I don't understand the problem. Ceasefires typically precede withdrawals, and so I didn't include the full resolution. (I omitted details of the resolution that was passed by a 2:1 vote also.) I believe that I mentioned the cease fire in another article.
Is there a distinction between "proposal" and "resolution" that is important, but unknown to me? If so, then please boldly substitute "resolution" for "proposal".
Thanks! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I have seen say that he called for withdrawal following negotiations, but changed his mind in 1973. But if he had changed his mind in December 1973, why does the article mention the October ceasefire agreement? Was the "immediate withdrawal" conditional on the NV agreeing to accept the terms of the October ceasefire and what if they did not? TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest looking at Isserman (somewhat partial to MH) and Drucker for discussions of Harrington's private and public thoughts on Vietnam.
Harrington seems to have changed his public stance in 1972, certainly before the December convention. I believe that he wrote a critique of his previous position in 1971, if my memory of Isserman/Drucker is correct.
Here are some references to the Negotiations Now! phase, which did organize high profile liberals to criticize Johnson, for the first time, according to Isserman (p. 271). (BTW, Isserman's language is POV and would need to be toned down to be NPOV, encyclopedic, and consistent with WP:BLP.) Isserman gives 1966 as the year that Irving Howe and Michael Harrington urged for an acceptance of defeat (withdrawal). By 1969, Harrington spoke at an anti-war rally. By 1970, Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal (p. 288).
In 1970, after returning from Sweden, Harrington and Penn Kemble drafted a compromise resolution on Vietnam (p. 290) for the SPA convention. It called for a withdrawal of U.S. forces, but with many qualifications: "cease-fire and speedy disengagement". The alternative resolution calling for a unilateral withdrawal was defeated by a 3:1 margin (even larger than in December 1972). McReynolds resigned (apparently in 1970, according to two publications cited on page 409, so his blog must be wrong); Harrington criticized "McReynolds's fantasy" about "the Shachtmanites", in The Village Voice, stating his personal position in favor of a withdrawal of U.S. forces but also commending the SPA for a democratic/civilized debate (p. 290). (Isserman doesn't discuss the Wisconsin delegation issue, I note.) In June, Kahn, Kemble, Suall floated a "Statement on Vietnam" calling for increased USA funding of S. Vietnamese government to allow a withdrawal of US forces---later to be called "Vietnamization", I'll add. Harrington replied in August in a 9-page note. (p. 291) Shachtman was furious and told his friends that Harrington was acting like a hypocrite, and apparently broke off all communications. (p. 292) By June, Harrington was considering organizing an opposition caucus. (p. 293)
For future reference, Isserman apparently discusses Democratic Agenda pp. 329--335.
The Vietnam Protest, November 25, 1965, Irving Howe, Michael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Lewis A. Coser, and Penn Kemble, New York Review of Books (SCAB journal!) There are 2-3 follow-up exchanges of letters of interest.
Maybe you have access to Isserman's article?
  • Isserman, M. (1996), MICHAEL HARRINGTON AND THE VIETNAM WAR: THE FAILURE OF ANTI-STALINISM IN THE 1960S. Peace & Change, 21: 383–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0130.1996.tb00279.x
"Harrington made his major imprint on the national psyche at 35 in 1963, when President John F. Kennedy discovered, through Dwight Macdonald's 50-page New Yorker essay-review of Harrington's book The Other America, that there were 40 to 60 million people living in poverty in what many had been calling our affluent society.
Until then, according to Isserman, thinking about the poor within the Kennedy administration had been piecemeal. Harrington's book supplied the organizing concept, the target, the word, and thus was the idea for the War on Poverty born. It can indeed be argued that what Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique did for feminism, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring for the environment and Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed for the public interest movement, The Other America did for the poor.
That seems a useful reference for socialists and the war on poverty! ;)
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drucker on Harrington/Shachtman[edit]

There were some problems with the earlier version, which cited Drucker without page references, for claims that appear to originate in an SPUSA history:

  • "Shachtman and his followers increasingly supported the war"
    [WRONG: Their strategy was to win a negotiated peace, one which would protect the safety of communists in the South, as noted in 1972 by the NYT. P. 303. Shachtman supported bombing perhaps (p. 305) or perhaps not (p. 303)---while I add the Socialist Party was against bombing by 1966 (as you can see at the convention resolution). WRONG WRONG: Drucker says that Harrington won stronger criticism of the Vietnam War in every convention (p. 307)]
  • "Harrington was strongly opposed to the war"
    [WRONG: Harrington compromised with Shachtman and the others through 1972 (p. 307), (much to the irritation of his friends at Dissent and to the New Left). Harrington and the majority negotiated compromise positions from 68-summer 1972 (307)]

These page references may be useful to TfD's questions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isserman writes, "By the following January [1970], he decided that the antiwar movement had been right to emphasize the demand for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, rather than simply negotiations.... Michael decided that "only an American commitment to withdrawal can make a negotiated settlement possible"". (p. 288)[3] I do not read that as "By 1970, Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal". TFD (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, but read Isserman's summary right above your quotation. (You can move our discussion of Isserman up, if you want.)
BTW, have you read the account of Hanoi's crack-down against democrats in the recent Dissent (magazine)? (It is important to remember that "Justice is always a fugitive from the victorious side.")  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrington spoke at an anti-war rally. I am aware of Harrington's anti-war views but am only concerned that they are explained with the proper nuance. I cannot find the Dissent article on Vietnam, but wonder what your point is. TFD (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To use a modern parallel, Barack Obama spoke at an anti-Iraq War rally, but that does not mean that his approach is the same as Michael Moore. TFD (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply wished to cite Isserman and Drucker, by pages, to sketch the evolution of Harrington's public and private statements on Vietnam. (When he was a pacifist in the 1950s, Harrington attended at least one rally or picketing demonstration against US funding of the French, which he describes in one or both memoirs and which may be in Isserman).
The relevance of the Obama/Moore analogy escapes me, because I never asserted that Harrington's politics were similar to any other speaker at that rally. Let us try to focus on improving the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I updated the infobox, which previously listed 3 successors: First SPUSA, then DSOC, finally SDUSA. I wrote "majority" SDUSA, then "minorities" DSOC and SPUSA. This may not make everybody happy, but it was the best I could think of. Legally, only SDUSA was the successor. Spiritually, all three have strong ties, which I tried to respect.

Finally, I noted that "dissolution" involved a "name change" to SDUSA. It would be better to change the the infobox, and choose a neutral term rather than "dissolution". (We seem to have successfully removed "dissolution" from many of the articles, particularly the many state SPUSA articles, with good will, although the details vary.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party Candidates Section Vandalized[edit]

Somebody vandalized that section by replacing the actual candidate's names on the 30 September 2014 edit to the page. I'd correct it, but this is my first time behind the scenes at wiki, and I don't want to mess anything up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.176.244 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Platform[edit]

Both the Wikipedia page and the Talk page seem preoccupied with political maneuvers. Should there not be a section explaining what the party has historically stood for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:94F:8C60:3509:8D74:89F1:46F (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Socialist Party of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Public Ownership Party (United States)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Public Ownership Party (United States). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6#Public Ownership Party (United States) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CPUSA[edit]

I think that Communist Party USA should be listed in the Infobox's "Succeeded By" section because CPUSA's page's first paragraph states that it split from the Socialist Party. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the CPUSA was formed from a merger of two parties that split from the Socialist Party so was not a direct successor. Furthermore, various parties split from the CPUSA and these parties also had splits as did the parties that split from them. This is too much information for an info-box.
I don't think that groups that break away are normally seen as successors, certainly not in info-boxes. We would not say for example that the U.S. is a successor of the British Empire or that the Republic of Ireland is a successor of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have a slightly different objection or formulation: that the Socialist Party did not die after the various communist and Leninist split-offs, and what was left of the CPUSA in 1972-73 did not arise from or succeed the SP of A.
On the other hand, the Socialist Party of America (by then the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation or SP-DSF) essentially broke into three in the early 1970's, with the legal title and apparatus staying with what renamed itself Social Democrats, USA; the largest part of the members leaving to start the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee; and the historic independent-party policy and spirit of the pre-1940 Socialist Party inherited by the Socialist Party, USA.
As to the @The Four Deuces:'s point, the State of West Virginia broke away from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maine from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but we don't call W. Va a successor of Virginia nor Maine a successor of Massachusetts. Neither do we list the Confederate States of America a successor to the U.S.A. Or Christianity (the New Covenant) the successor to Judaism, (the Old Covenant), even though the early Christians certainly thought of their faith as such (just as Communists and later Trotskyists considered themselves to be the legitimate successors to the Debs-era Socialist Party —— Shakescene (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America&oldid=1208256662"