Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 6 July 2011

Socialism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

Election box metadata

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.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Socialist Party of America/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Socialist Party of America/meta/shortname Content: Template:Socialist Party of America/meta/shortname

• • Could a different shade of red be used? This one is indiscernible from the Republican color (See United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 1912#1st Congressional District for example). Gamecock (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of "left"

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)

Shachtman

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Insinuation

"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)

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)

Reversal of meaning

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dueling websites?

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)

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)

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

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)

Apparent Vanity Posting

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)

Removed External Links

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)

Unclear statement

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)

List of members

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)

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 /_Cont 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Very confusing first lines

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)

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)

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. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

How Do You Want to Split This Thing?

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)

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)

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

Error in Magazine Refs

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)

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)

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)

Socialist Party of America/Socialist Party USA

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, Misplaced Pages 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. 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)

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).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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).

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)

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)

Prominent members

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)

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)

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)

Socialist mayors

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)

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)

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)

State, local elected socialists

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

Trotsky, Bukharin, Kollontai

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)

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)

List of prominent members

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Second opinionsWP:COI, WP:Copyright violation]]

Dear brothers and sisters,

This paragraph drove me bananas:

This split was reflected in party members opinions about the ]] and the New Left – Shachtman and his followers increasingly supported the war and greatly distrusted the New Left, Harrington was strongly opposed to the war, but was nevertheless suspicious of the New Left, while the Debs Caucus opposed the war and embraced the New Left. Conversely, of all the three groups, the ] maintained the strongest tendency to Marxist orthodoxy (or their version of it) and democratic centralism, while the other two caucuses were more eclectic in their approach to socialism. This division was manifest most strongly during the ]], 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.

First there is the problem of undue weight given to the "Debs caucus", which was treated as a novelty "a Debs caucus" by the NYT

Second, stating that Shachtman and his followers supported the war is simply false: Look at what the Times wrote! Stating that they were democratic centralists is an insane slander, and whoever wrote that needs to gargle dish-washing liquid and then wash their mouth with soap: It is a matter of fact that anybody who was a member of a democratic centralist organization could be immediately expelled from the old SP, LID, SLID/SDS, (my guess) SDUSA, and DSOC/DSA and perhaps (I haven't had the pleasure) McReynold's SPUSA. (We all get sloppy but most of us should know that calling a socialist a "communist" can result in expensive dental work.)

Third there is a gross exaggeration of Shachtman's influence and involvement in the party. I recall that Drucker's biography was respectable and serious, but that its preface admitted his leftwing biases (and proudly outed himself). However, it should not be the main source. Where is Shachtman in the newspaper accounts? He seems to have been a father figure for Kahn and Horowitz, but shouldn't we discuss the officers and staffpersons more than Shachtman?

Fourth, the other main source on the history was a state chapter of the SPUSA. This probably accounts for the grossly undue weight given it. Now I see that much of the "history" is a plagiarism of the delusion/"history" published by the Socialist Party USA, which is about as accurate as History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It seems that the references to Peter Drucker were thrown in as cover for a sectarian plagiarism of a sectarian history. This kind of misuse of Misplaced Pages, that is seizing a public good (this article) and using it duplicitously to promote a a private interest, should be condemned especially by democratic socialists and social democrats. This abuse certainly violates WP policies about COI, reliable sources, NPOV, due weight, copyright violation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the mighty Carrite's help, I got references to NYT and was able to write a NYT based account of the final days of the SP. I have probably made spelling and more serious mistakes, and I would be grateful if you all would~please closely scrutinize my edits and introduce "further perfections".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference SPRI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Drucker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• B-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles