Talk:Social Democrats, USA/Archive 1

Paul Wolfowitz

Although Paul Wolfowitz apparently once had an association with the "Schachtmanites" it may have been before the Social Democrats USA was founded. Furthermore, this relationship may have existed only in Wolfowitz' youth. As now phrased, the sentence gives the impression that Wolfowitz falls into the pattern of several adult SDUSA members who left the organization for the Republican party and neoconservatism. This may not be the case. Although Wolfowitz's past is certainly an important issue I suggest further inquiry to make sure things are phrased in a non-exaggerated manner. In addition, the reference to the service of SD members in the Bush administration may be an inaccurate reference to SD members at the National Endowment for Democracy (not really a government agency). If NED is what is meant, then you should point out that the same SD members served at NED throughout the Clinton administration. [unsigned and undated]

There has been some very good stylistic cleanup of this article, but the question has still not been answered: Was Paul Wolfowitz ever a member of the SDUSA. I don't believe he was, although I have heard credible evidence that he was in the Schachmanite youth group that existed prior to the SDUSA. If someone doesn't come up with a citation for his SD membership in the next few months, I'm inclined to delete the sentence.--6 Jan. 2006

My understanding is that Wolfowitz spoke at SDUSA events but was not a member. metzerly 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Peter G Werner has disputed the neutrality of this article. It would be helpful if he summarized his objections here so they could be addressed. -David Schaich 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that – I actually did write something, but I guess I never properly saved the page. Anyway, the reason I put up the NPOV tag is because the article's focus is almost exclusively devoted to SDUSA's alleged ties to neoconservatism and a critique of the organization's allegedly conservative stance on foreign policy, with almost no discussion of the organization's history, membership, stated goals, nor their take on whether they consider themselves to be neoconservative or not. The article reads as rather conspiratorial, really.

I'm not saying content expressing criticism of the organization doesn't have its place in the article – it most certainly does and is a vital part of any article about a controversial group. Its a question of balance, really, and it seems obvious to me that this article is very imbalanced, not to mention that, other than the neo-con stuff, the article has essentially stub-level information about the group.

Finally, I'll point out that a large part of the reason that the article is so severely imbalanced is that much of the content was contributed by User:Jacrosse. If you read the request for arbitration concerning Jacrosse, you'll note that Jacrosse was apparently was a partisan of a conspiracy theory that led from Max Schachtman to Neoconservatism. In fact, pushing that theory was his sole reason for editing Wikipedia, and his activity on that behalf was so obnoxious that he was banned from editing political articles for one year. This should be kept in mind when evaluating this article. Peter G Werner 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be more a matter of lack of content than of neutrality -- and somewhat justifiable lack of content at that, since the SDUSA doesn't really do much as an organization, so far as I can tell. They're mainly of interest as an important illustration of the evolution of many socialists from Trotskyism or other froms of leftist anti-Stalinism to centrism or neoconservatism. (I hope it's not a conspiracy theory to say that Schachtman was one of many who followed that path, and was one of the more influential individuals to do so.)

It's not necessarily criticism either; I expect opinions about it would depend on the reader's own politics and feelings about socialism and neoconservatism. Wandering through the SDUSA Web site, I found a copy of a recent Wall Street Journal article by Joshua Muravchik in which he states that many, though not all, members of the organization were happy to call themselves neoconservatives: "Mr. Kemble... rejected the badge "neoconservative" that many of us who had worked with him came to wear with pride."

I see this problem of alleging a Shachtmanite conspiracy or takeover in many WP articles still, so I today I embolden a quote from this statement: "a large part of the reason that the article is so severely imbalanced is that much of the content was contributed by User:Jacrosse. If you read the request for arbitration concerning Jacrosse, you'll note that Jacrosse was apparently was a partisan of a conspiracy theory that led from Max Schachtman to Neoconservatism."

This is useful information for editors here, even today, because similar allegations occur on many internet websites (of both far right and far left).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I did look around a bit for information on their activities, and was able to find this 17-year old report, which seems well-documented. It mostly seems to spend most time on the individual activities of certain members, but I'll see if I can extract something from it for this article. Membership has to be tiny at this point. They were under 1,000 members in the 1980s and have been declining steadily since. -David Schaich 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its still my contention that having the sole focus of the article be its role in the evolution of neoconservatism is strongly POV. Yes, the group is small and far from being very active, but if an organization is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it, then its notable enough to have some discussion about their history and their own POV about their political mission, alongside critical discussion of the group and the airing of criticisms of it. That to me is simply NPOV at its most basic.

I'll note that Groupwatch is a very biased source and that should be taken into account when using them as a source. I think this is the one of the essential problems with this article – its very difficult, if not impossible, to have an NPOV article when every single source that you use is from a critic of that group. Its every bit as unbalanced as basing the whole article based only on sources written by the group itself or its supporters.

I don't contest that fact Shachtman's political evolution was one long drift to the center, and ultimately the right (though not without helping start some very notable political tendencies along the way). Its probably even accurate to say that some "Shactmanites" have ended up as neoconservatives. What I do see as basically a conspiracy theory are theories that place the whole phenomenon of neoconservatism at the feet of Shachtman or the SDUSA – this is largely a phantom touted by the paleoconservative and neo-Stalinist fringe of the anti-war movement and amplified by some very lazy journalism. (At its crudest, this theory seems to play into a mentality that boils down to "Neocon = Trotskyist = Jew".)

Seriously, show me one piece of writing by Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick, or other notable neocon where they justify their policies on the basis of dialectics or historical materialism. (The closest I can think of is Francis Fukuyama, and if anything, he counted himself as a kind of anti-Marxist Hegelian.)

I find the term "neoconservative" problematic in itself – how many people actually call themselves "neoconservatives" rather than just have it foisted on them by others as a term of abuse? I simply don't think its appropriate to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to put words in other people's mouths, hence I'd be damn cautious about putting that label on people. Peter G Werner 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome some more information from more sympathetic sources, but wasn't able to find any after some hours of searching. Groupwatch may be biased (I'm not familiar with them) but that deosn't necessarily invalidate their research and scholarship. The pages I linked to still strike me as sober and sound. That bit about historical materialism seems a straw man -- I've never seen any claims that neoconservatives are still Trotskyists, just that some once were, and perhaps retain some attitudes or habits of thought from their early years. As for the term itself, I was used to simply taking it at its face value -- "new" conservatives who were once on the left but moved into the conservative camp during the Cold War. Though the discussion at Neoconservatism make that seem a little naive. Still, I'll again note that Muravchik claims the label with pride and says many other SDs do as well, as do Irving Kristol and others. -David Schaich 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Never seen any claims that neoconservatives are still Trotskyists? That's one of the favorite warhorses of Justin Raimondo or antiwar.com and other anti-war paleocons, including Pat Buchanan. Here are several links where they claim exactly that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This was apparently Jacrosse's thesis as well when he was editing this and other articles related to Shachtman. I suppose if enough people actually buy into this conspiracy theory, it deserves some mention. However, the "neoconservatism as morphed Trotskysim" meme strikes me as a pretty fringe idea, and I think articles, like this one, that make that their central thesis suffer from a real lack of balance.

I'll contribute much needed edits to this article over the next several weeks. There's plenty of material on the SDUSA website, such as this "unofficial" outline of their ideas that I can at least add something up about their self-stated goals. I've also ordered a copy of the biography "Max Shachtman and His Left" from interlibrary loan, which I believe includes covers the founding and early years of SDUSA, and represents a piece of primary research rather than the kind of second- and third-hand stuff that comes from the "neocon conspiracy" crowd. Peter G Werner 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing – unless this statement: "A number of former members of the SDUSA serve in the current administration of George W. Bush including Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, and Ken Adelman." can actually be substantiated, it should be dropped. Is there any evidence, outside of conspiracy theorist literature, that Wolfowitz was ever a member of SDUSA? Peter G Werner 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems accepted [7] [8] that Abrams was a member. The Michigan Socialist actually states that Wolfowitz was not a member, though I heven't been able to find any information on the claim that he's spoken at their meetings, or about Adelman. Ah, you removed it while I was looking around. Reasonable. -David Schaich 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I could see adding something about Wolfowitz and Jeanne Kirkpatrick giving speeches for them and something about Elliott Abrams being an early member. The earliest source given about Elliott Abrams was a 1986 article in Mother Jones, which I'll make a point of double-checking soon. Peter G Werner 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this statement. Based on my research, there's nothing to substantiate it. The closest thing I could find was that Elliott Abrams was a member of the Young People's Socialist League during his college years in the late 1960s. In any event, SDUSA wasn't founded until 1973, and I see no evidence that Abrams was a member or even calling himself a socialist or social democrat by that point. Peter G Werner 02:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Wattenberg SDUSA ally, not a member

I don't believe that Ben Wattenberg was ever a member of Social Democrats, USA. He was a political and organizational ally, but not a member.

--StuartCElliott 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Domain Changes

The domain socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org has been changed to FW: americansocialistvoter.com by its owner SDUSA and has been changed to end some confusion among several socialist like groups as was its theme. The official domain for SDUSA is socialdemocratsusa.org while the archived older domain will still be kept up for some time to come. There wasn't any vandalism if known members of SDUSA changed its own information. When persons not in the know "assume" they fail to understand the bigger picture... they know who "they are." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.164 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Party Name Change

The website has not been updated, the office has been closed, the phone numbers are not the Social Democrats USA office. The website was paid up until 2011 in checking WHOIS. The last remaining SDUSA Local is SDPPA, Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania and is reforming the party with the name changed to Social Democratic Party of America, both a social democratic and democratic socialist blend towards unity efforts and to further relations with the Socialist International. The Social Democratic Party of America just before New Years 2008 announced its national convention which helped to keep its SDUSA seat on the SI Council. However with dues in the arrears there isn't "Full" voting status but "Associated" under Statute 3.5 of the Socialist International. Comraderedoctober (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great, do you have any independent sources on this? Please add (only) content that is cited to such sources.T L Miles (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Social Democrats find that Socialist Party USA members attempting to edit a history they have no access to and are limited to an old and out of date website a conflict of interest as they are against the split of 2007 within the SPUSA.Comraderedoctober (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.34.219 (talk)

OK. But to add stuff to Wikipedia you need some citation of reliable, independent sources. You can't just say: "I'm now in charge of this defunct organisation and you should believe me.". BTW: if you folks are in charge of SDUSA, why can't you change the website?T L Miles (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The person who ran the website has paid it up until 2011 therfore the website will remain until then. All access was lost due to the death of said person who did not leave access information behind. This is why the website has not been changed. In the future our bylaws will reflect better management of such new technologies. Not many of the old guard even knows what html or other coding is or how it works so the pool of persons to work websites is limited to the few and willing.Comraderedoctober (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So contact the registrar. If you have any sort of credible claim to the organization, its name and its resources, you will be able to control its Web site. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have all the records and have made all the contacts. When the domain runs out we have a very high bid already placed to keep it from David Schaich's hatefulness of any Social Democrat. The SP-USA has openly become the new communistic center of action that even the CPUSA frowns on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.161.188 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Realistic"

What does "Changing the name of the Socialist Party to "Social Democrats USA" was intended to be "realistic" mean? How can changing a name be realistic? That does not make any sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs)

The reasoning was that the SP was no longer operating as an actual political party in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans, but rather as a social democratic pressure group within the Democratic Party; and therefore the name should change to match the reality. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good answer. I shall strive to improve the text. Thanks for the comments,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I quickly glossed "realistic" by providing an overview of the paragraph.

BTW, Orange Mike, the Debs-Thomas dinner archives notes that c. 1970 (my memory is weak today) the members of the Debs Caucus (largely) had stopped participating. I had previously asked whether anybody could find data on the relative sizes of the caucuses before 1972. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We need more solid sources. My friends of the old Debs Caucus would probably retort that they had been squeezed out and marginalized by the dominant faction; but that's not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy edits. I thought that you might find the Debs-Thomas source interesting, and mentioned it FYI.It has links to audio of Thomas for example.

I doubt that Carl Shier "squeezed out" anybody from buying tickets to the dinner, but I could understand your friends putting their attention elsewhere.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Need Somebody to Arbitrate?

If you want somebody outside of the factional loop to knock heads together and help decide what is fair and what isn't, drop me a line. I'm an ex-member of all three: DSOC, SDUSA, and SPUSA and don't really have either love or hate towards any of 'em, but a bit of understanding towards all three.

SDUSA is the toughest to write because of the really hardline anti-communism of the group, which brought some of their members into close connection with the Reagan administration. Who exactly and how close? That's open to discussion -- but there was some sort of sympathetic connection there and that needs to be mentioned, I think. The connection between SDUSA (primarily an organization of the 1970s) and the Bush-the-younger administration is pretty sketchy though, and the easiest way to solve this whole "neocon" mess is to dismiss it. Make a list of prominent members of SDUSA and let people draw their own conclusions, just like the long list of prominent members of the old SPA, etc. Socialist Party of America

But all this quibbling over names and websites strikes me as silly. I don't know that you can say that any of the three above-mentioned organizations are truly "alive" at this point, if you catch my drift. Stop trying to belly-bounce the other guys off the face of the earth. Just stick to documents, tell the story, and don't take cheap shots.

Carrite (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR -- Early American Marxism website

As I understand it Shachtmanites took over the Socialist Party of the USA in 1972, which they renamed Social Democrats USA, but the party effectively ceased to exist. The new group's only role was organizing reunion parties. These are all reported under the website http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

There is now a new website http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/ which appears to be very different in orientation.

The idea that SDUSA has any influence or that its "members" work together isn't true. The neo-con connection is misplaced. While some writers trace the origins of neoconservatism to left-wing origins, it isn't through the SDUSA.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

¶ I was there (not in New York, but at most of the conventions) and as always it's slightly more complicated. Most of the victorious Unity Caucus supported Humphrey or Muskie rather than Scoop Jackson, although Jackson had his supporters among the more fervent hard-line Shachtmanites. (Both Humphrey and Muskie had at least one significant supporter in Harrington's Coalition Caucus, so the lines don't cut neatly.)

¶ See Michael Harrington's The Long-Distance Runner for an account of how DSA was able to get itself admitted to the Socialist International as a full member over SDUSA's opposition. When the SI's council met in New York two decades ago, there were two full SI members in the USA: SDUSA and DSA. The International likes to have all of a nation's workers united in one political organization, and will work to encourage unity, but recognizes that this isn't always possible. When the current Socialist Party, USA, was just about able to join the SI as an associate rather than an observer (or as a full member rather than an associate), after SDUSA's objections had become less of an obstacle, there arose some reluctance within the SPUSA to pay higher dues to an organization which was seen as too conservative by a significant number of SP'ers. In SDUSA's case, if it were to revive, one question would be whether it's large enough yet to qualify.

¶ I don't understand the messy details, and I'm not sure I want to read all the factional back-and-forth, but someone who's no longer in the post-1972 SPUSA has claimed title to the SDUSA franchise, and thereby, he asserts, to the names "Socialist Party of America", "Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation" and "Socialist Party-Democratic Socialist Federation" [names of which the SDUSA carefully kept legal control before adopting a new name] together with the SP of A's/SDUSA's historic membership in the International. This will be (and has been) vigorously disputed from many sides (and I personally think it's a huge stretch), but of course it's not Wikipedia's job to pass judgement on such questions. The old website (without the USA) is what existed in the early part of this decade, and has not been updated since the middle of the decade; the new one (with the USA) belongs to the very new "Social Democrats USA -- Socialist Party of America". For some of the factional back-and-forth ("will the real SPUSA please stand up?"), see these letters.

¶ There was a neo-conservative tendency within the 1973 SDUSA, and relatively-tolerant attitude to neo-conservatism within the larger group, and the neo-conservative, naturally, did tend to work together when they agreed. But it wasn't really strong, powerful or cohesive enough to classify as a conspiracy, any more than libertarians have been a conscious conspiracy rather than a tendency within Washington politics. If these had been the decisive forces (say SDUSA versus the Cato Institute), the libertarians would have won hands down and taken over the country. SDUSA's importance to the neo-conservative movement declined radically once the hard-line forces around George Meany, Jay Lovestone and Irving Brown had lost control of the AFL-CIO to those around William Winpisinger (of the Machinists) and John Sweeney, who were more sympathetic to DSA. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I found another site for them where they discuss recent history: http://www.socialdems.com/page.asp?pid=1502 This article needs work and it would be helpful if you could fix it. Here's a quote from Max Shachtman: "We do not envy the future historian of the American revolutionary movement when he faces the problem of tracing the course of the ephemeral sects." (New International, Dec. 1938). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the following edits: 1. Final paragraph of lead: Delete and replace with sentence that Kemble signed the letter as a representative of SDUSA. 2. Cold War and Influence on Neocons section: delete. 3. External links: remove Saddam Hussein letter (already in footnotes). 4. Add all web-sites. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that even at the end, SDUSA had some members who considered themselves philosophically (if not practically) pacifists, but it's true that, as an organization, SDUSA (and the majority of the SP before SDUSA) had been strong supporters of Israel, and that SDUSA generally favored an internationalist or interventionist foreign policy. So those points, although they may need better sourcing, aren't subject to much serious challenge from any side, nor are they tendentiously pushing a particular point of view. It's the relationship with neo-conservatism that's far trickier to define and document. The neo-conservative or pro-neoconservative tendency within SDUSA was only one of several, and many SDers never considered themselves to be neo-conservatives or supporters of neo-conservatism (in fact many who identified strongly with the labor movement would have strenuously rejected such a label.) And many of the bona fide neo-conservatives who sprang from SDUSA and YPSL left those organizations, on reasonably friendly terms, and stopped calling themselves democratic socialists or social democrats, most notably Joshua Muravchik and Linda Chavez. So I'm not sure exactly how to rewrite that biased last paragraph of the introduction (lede). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse Shakescene's comments as well-informed and his (embracing her!) statements of insider-knowledge as credible. In later years, this was a group of social democrats who liked meet once or twice a year and have an interesting discussion, and they would invite outsiders to have a better discussion (often from their right, like somebody from the DLC or Seymore Martin Lipset, rather than from their immediate left DSOC/DSA).

In states like Michigan, their membership had a significant overlap with DSA's.

One of their members explained to me that most of them had been through enough sectarian debates that they disliked any attempt to brand people as "bad", as long as they had liberal-labor politics. Some of their members or former members had obviously moved closer to neo-conservatism, e.g. Muravchik, but they were clearly outsiders (rather than spokespersons for the organization).

It would be ridiculous to label them as "conservatives", when open homosexuals like Bayard Rustin were so prominent and publicized as leaders. Their record on civil rights was solidly liberal or social democratic. They had an important role in developing organizers for the labor movement, which is very different than conservatism.

They were not far from the social democrats of Europe, which since 1990 have generally followed a more liberal policy (not extending the state's role in the economy, and sometimes favoring markets explicitly). This cannot be said of DSA or the SP, the last I checked.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Social Policies:Center-Right???

Orangemike said that it is their center-right social policy stances that first distinguished them from those who would later become the reborn SPUSA. What makes SDUSA different from other socialist and social democratic is their intervention stance in foreign policy. Socially SDUSA is still a center-left and should be classify as social liberal. I think the best compromise would be center-left and centrist in fiscal and social policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Political parties that supported (2) (a) Nixon, (b) Reagan and (c) George W. Bush would not normally be considered "centre-left". (3) Prominent members (a) Jeane Kirkpatrick, (c) Linda Chavez, Sidney Hook, and (b) Joshua Muravchik were not "centre-left". (4) Also, their ideology was much closer to neoliberalism than social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many errors and WP policy violations that should be marked. (1) SDUSA was not a party---see Hook's address to the first convention. (2) Nobody supported Nixon or Reagan or GWBush. (a) SDUSUA (its allies or predecessors) did not support McGovern. (b) Democratic socialist Paul Berman wrote a piece on Sidney Hook, "Communists in Hell", in the Village Voice around 1991 stating that Hook voted for Reagan (because of anti-communism), but SDUSA did not support Reagan: Berman took Hook seriously. (c) I believe that the staff of DSA supported the senior Bush's first war against Saddam Hussein (at least the former director wrote a column that he read later on NPR doing so), and it is no surprise that SDUSA supported the removal of a Soviet-built fascist police state, even if the effort was to be led by George W. Bush. Otherwise, there seems to be no evidence of any support; rather there is a lot of evidence of criticism, e.g. by Kemble, before it became fashionable. (3) (a) There seems to be no evidence that Kirkpatrick had anything to do with SDUSA, apart from appearing on a panel in one discussion: Tom Kahn and others spent a lot of time arguing that Kirkpatrick was wrong on many points, so this cliche is as well founded as the belief that Sweden has had the world's highest suicide rate. (b) Muravchik honestly stated that he was a neo-conservative, and states that the SDUSA people remain social democrats, with whom he has polite and interesting discussions. Read (former DSA-NEC member) Harold Meyerson's piece to see how far Muravchik was from SDUSA or indeed from his father! There is no evidence of a connection between Chavez and SDUSA. (C.f., Ronald Reagan, who would go to CPUSA events when he was an actor.) (4) You seem ignorant of the meaning of "neoliberalism": You should read about Thatcher and Reagan's policies.

Your fallacy is that of taking the most extreme action of an extreme member and than use that to smear the organization. It would be similar to taking Manning Marable's praise for Cuba and criticism of Eastern European independent peace activists and then use that to smear DSA; Marable's ties to DSA (e.g. NEC membership) were stronger than Murvachik's to SDUSA. Of course, Michael Harrington and Irving Howe and Bogdan Denitch were more representative of DSA's foreign policy. Of course, I give this comparison rhetorically, because Muravchik's politics are infinitely better than Marable's were: Muravchik never praised the lack of free speech in a police state.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When Richard M. Scammon and Ben Wattenberg first popularized the term "social issue" in The Real Majority (1970), I didn't like it because of its ambiguity: it was really referring to a cluster of distinct but overlapping non-economic conflicts over (among other things) race, class, mores, the generation gap, drugs and the counter-culture. The words "social issue" or "social policy" can mean so many things to a non-expert reader that I think the best thing is just to leave it out of the information box, since (as one who suffered through the Socialist Party's breakup and the birth of SDUSA & DSA in 1971-3) I think you're both right. Neo-conservatism was about domestic policy (The Public Interest's principal concern) long before it was associated with a hawkish defense policy, and many of SDUSA's founders shared that social conservatism (together with George Meany's wing of the AFL-CIO and many of the AFL-CIO's rank and file). But SDUSA was secularist, and far from completely neo-conservative in its membership. While SDUSA often allied with the Religious Right on issues like Soviet Jewry, Israel or racial quotas, most SDUSA members, for example, were probably pro-choice and against the death penalty. It's one of those things that just fits badly into an Information Box, and would require too much wordy explanation and qualification if you did try to summarize SDUSA's position in a couple of words. ¶ Several of those prominent members didn't stick around SDUSA, even if that's where their politics started (e.g. Linda Chavez and Joshua Muravchik). Social conservatism is one of the reasons I joined the Coalition Caucus & DSOC and stopped being active in SDUSA, but that conservatism is hard to pin down within the larger political spectrum. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to leave out the field. By the way, i notice that they have a new website.[9] Do you know if anything has been written about the new leadership. none of the people mentioned in the website appear to be well-known. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an extended (and somewhat contentious) discussion at Talk:Socialist Party of America or Talk:Socialist Party USA, and the three subsections of Talk:SDUSA immediately above this one. As I dimly understand at fourth hand, a dissident group from the post-1973 Socialist Party wants to start a new fusionist party (which at first they called the Social Democratic Party) and take over the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation name and seat on the Socialist International formerly held by the now-moribund-to-dead SDUSA. The new group runs a SDUSA website under a slightly-different URL, but also has a link to an archived copy of the last version of the old SDUSA website. David Hacker is a vaguely familiar name to me (although I associated his name with DSOC/DSA), and I think he's written for Dissent magazine; but I don't know the other names. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum

The position of a party (or in this case the successor to a party) in the political spectrum relates to the party type, not the party policies. Please discuss the position on the political spectrum before regrouping it. TFD (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I am removing the reference to Glenn Beck which is non-notable and uninformative. TFD (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits by K.W.

I removed a lot of junk, including sectarian folk-lore that had no documentation. I toned down a lot of BLP violations, e.g. about Elliot Abrams, which had slim or no documentation, e.g. in Abrams case, only a bad link to a fringe political group's website.

I removed the following section, because it had no documentation apart from OR. It did not seem to have egregious violations of BLP policies:

Removed Section

May 2009 phone conference

The SD,USA-SP,USA held a re-founding phone conference on May 3, 2009. Acting National Director Gabriel McCloskey-Ross and acting Young Peoples' Socialist League National Secretary Seamus Johnston were given the task of holding both a local convention and organizing the phone conference with the aid of the Laurel Highlands (Western Pennsylvania) local, the group's only functioning local, with more than one-third of the organization's total membership.

Individual members in other parts of the country objected to how the Laurel Highlands local was handling the on-site convention preparation, particularly that cultural majorities were not being fairly represented in local organizing. A number of active members argued that among the issues any revived social democratic organization should focus on were the conflicts in the Middle East, and that any fledgling S-D group should be aware of sentiments within American liberal communities, including the liberal sectors of the American Jewish community. Disagreements over these issues led to the departure of at least two leading members from the SD,USA-SP,USA, leading to the formation of another group, which also considers itself the Social Democrats USA. Not unrelated to the disagreements that led to this breakaway, it was decided during the May 3, 2009 phone conference to add language to the SD,USA-SP,USA's Statement of Principles condemning opposition to Zionism as racism.

Via the May phone conference, a new set of officers were elected by the McCloskey-Ross and Johnston group; these people were charged with the daily affairs of the organization. A further controversy ensued over allegations that some of the newly-elected officers had stopped paying organizational dues in protest of political positions maintained by other officers, thus losing membership and party official status. A factional fight erupted, which is ongoing.

The McKlosky-Ross Johnson group plans to hold ongoing meetings to build toward a nationwide May Rally next May 1, 2011.

Suggest Removal

This article, as it currently stands, basically guts the history of SDUSA beyond recognition, is misleading, and provides little or no useful information. Sectarian groups trying to take on SDUSA's name (the real organization is dead) are trying to rewrite the organization's history because they find various aspects of it embarrassing. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.59.204.131 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion is not the solution to shortcomings in an article about a notable topic. A Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage in the New York Times and several other newspapers. I recall coverage in The National Review, and as pointed out by another editor, Michael Harrington discusses the group in some of his books. The material is there for a better, properly referenced article. Improve it rather than suggesting it be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Michael Harrington acknowledges in The Long Distance Runner (or was it in Fragments of a Century) feeling betrayed by some mentored youth who later became prominent in SDUSA, Harrington's memoirs are probably a primary sources, associated with a good man who had some bitter feelings toward SDUSA. Maybe you can find a review of Harrington's memoirs by Maurice Isserman, or a discussion in his biography of Harrington. Isserman is a reputable historian. (Bogdan Denitch's account would be highly entertaining, but probably no less biased, if his memoirs ever appear.)

There was some kind of debate between Harrington and Tom KahnCarl Gershman after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: I added the reference, which could be mentioned. (I added a reference to the debate between Kahn and Podhoretz. 11:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC))  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 11:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion regarding Isserman is a good one. He has gone on to become a historian of mountaineering, which is one of my interests. Cullen328 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Isserman wrote a JSTOR archived article, about anti-Stalinist anti-Vietnam-war politics, which may be more relevant to an article about Harrington or the American New Left.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)) guess that this appears as a chapter in Isserman's biography of Harrington:

TY - JOUR AU - Isserman, Maurice TI - MICHAEL HARRINGTON AND THE VIETNAM WAR: THE FAILURE OF ANTI-STALINISM IN THE 1960S JO - Peace & Change VL - 21 IS - 4 PB - Blackwell Publishing Ltd SN - 1468-0130 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.1996.tb00279.x DO - 10.1111/j.1468-0130.1996.tb00279.x SP - 383 EP - 408 PY - 1996

Perhaps Isserman got tired of the flatlands near Oberlin and decided to head East? ;) Look at Robert Phelps and restrain any mountaineering purple prose you wish! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Your comments are welcome, of course.

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz's cure (triple or quadruple amputation) was worse than the ailments it was addressing. I don't think that deletion of the remaining stump is called for, just working from one of the earlier versions that editors like me, User:Carrite and User:Dudeman5685 developed in a reasonably objective, non-factionalist, fashion a year or two ago, e.g. 4 February 2009 , later 4 Feb 2009, September 2009, or 21 April 2010. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys made a fine effort for a blog, but most of it was OR and unreliable. You had a long discussion of foreign policy, with one citation, to the Socialist International's website, with a "See the SI for ..", which was original research (besides having non-encyclopediac ordering of readers).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable

The recent blanking of the historical section is absolutely unacceptable. I don't have a day to give this page this week, but the wanton annihilation of unsourced information will not stand. That material should have been tagged for sources, not deleted. That material will be sourced out and will reappear, take that to the bank. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review the BLP policy on unsourced statements about living persons. Further, you should consider whether the interhemispheric resource center, IPS, and Christopher Hitchens in the Nation ("Minority Report") meet the standard of reliable sources.

Just find reliable sources. I did not say that you were wrong, but that you did not have the needed sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

E.g., IHRC hasn't updated their piece to observe that Lane Kirkland is not the head of the AFL-CIO, among other problems.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved from a user talk page

The deleted material is available in the history, so restoring it should be easy, once you find sources. You just need to find reliable sources and to avoid OR. I'd hope that finding a newspaper article on Hatcher's relaunch should be easy.

I deleted the CPUSA external link because of its unreliability: External sources are supposed to be as reliable as cited sources. Also, it was about pre-SDUSA SP politics. If you are interested in that history, you can find out more about Jay Lovestone in one semi-reliable source: When he was a new leftist, Ronald Radosh wrote a book Foreign policy of American labor, which was documented carefully, as befits a historian. There was a memoire by a fellow Presidents and Peons about the AFL-CIO and Latin America, which is more of a primary source. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop by the Talk Page of the SDUSA piece and provide your input, whatever it may be. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Carrite, New America and The Democratic Left and the ward newspaper of some suburb of Kansas City are primary sources. You need to find secondary sources, at least to sustain the main narrative. (It's great if you link primary sources that people can check, that back-up the points established by the secondary sources.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Inapplicable flag down

As there was no commentary on this page about the "Inappropriate References" flag which was dumped onto the gutted version of this article on this page, it has been removed. As there are no such "inappropriate self-references" cited in the article, I presume it will stay down. If there are legitimate concerns, state them here. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since SDUSA was apparently founded in 1973, a CPUSA 1975 attack pamphlet is not a reliable source. I have left it as "further reading", although such "further reading" sources (like "external links") are supposed to meet WP's standards of reliability and relevance. It is tagged as unreliable, though.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule whatsoever, anywhere, that Further Reading suggestions must meet standards of independence and reliability. Indeed, Wikipedians are instructed to present the full gamut of ideas and interpretations about a given topic, leaving readers to make up their own minds about interpretation. The "Communist Front" tag placed below the title was an altogether ridiculous violation of Wikipedia's very firm rules regarding Neutral Point of View. This article has been rendered a disaster, void of historical context, by a pointless chopping of the origins section. Now it is time to rebuild it. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP Policy: Further reading

I quote from WP:Further reading ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)):

Reliable

Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation.

Balanced

Works named in this section should present a neutral view of the subject, or, if works of a particular point of view are presented, the section should present a balance of various points of view.

Balance is not merely a matter of listing the same number of sources for each point of view, but should be measured relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources. If a large number of high-quality sources reflect a given view, then the Further reading section should normally reflect that tendency. Significant minority points of view should usually be included, subject to the same quality guidelines on reliability, topicality, and the limited size of the section. Publications about a tiny minority view need not be included at all. Notable and important works should not be excluded solely to achieve numerical balance.

Further reading sections are not to be used for pushing a point of view.

A "tiny point of view" describes the Communist Party of the United States of America, particularly as administered by Gus Hall. That is why this 1976 pamphlet should not appear by itself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a swell citation, but you are not citing an approved Wikipedia policy, only a draft proposal, with which I absolutely do not agree. This citation has no force whatsoever, I regret to inform you. Please read the page you cite again, from the top: The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It has some force, in guiding policy on other pages, when there has been a discussion among NPOV-compliant editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The Washington Times has been an extremely right-wing Moony newspaper. It was not a reliable source at the time of the obiturary of Kemble.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you intimating that the Washington Times is not a "reliable source" for the fact that Penn Kemble died of cancer on October 15, 2005? A very interesting perspective. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The change of sources to Washington Post is fine. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Another editor's (09:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)) promoting the self-described Neocon Muravshik (without citation)'s description of a Kemble as a neocon was only onea POV-push, among your many others.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't mistake my edits for those of others, please. Let's just drop the Neocon issue for now, it's very small on my radar. I'm going to start a new thread below, no disrespect to this one. I don't have a problem going with Washington Post v. Washington Times re: Kembles death date and cause. We're done on that. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Carrite was absolutely right to correct me! Sorry for my delay in acknowleding my error, besides striking out the earlier mistake.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On origins

Here is the long deleted, unsourced section on origins for further discussion:

Long section of stuff

Origins By 1972, the American left was deeply split into a multiplicity of factional groupings. Even a numerically small organization, such as the historic Socialist Party, was bitterly divided over questions such as the socialist position on the Vietnam War, relations with different segments of the labor movement, and the perspective to be taken by socialists towards the "New Politics" of insurgent Democratic Party Presidential candidate George McGovern. Central was the question which had tormented the Socialist Party since its Convention of 1912 — what should be the organization's policy towards those advocating syndicalism or socialism established by revolutionary means? On the Socialist Party's Right were many of the primary officials of the party, including Max Shachtman, Tom Kahn, Charles S. Zimmerman, Bayard Rustin, Paul Feldman, Penn Kemble and Joan Suall, who saw in communism a heinous social system which must be stopped from expansion through the application of military force. They therefore opposed the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and looked askance from the motley anti-war movement, which included Maoists, supporters of Ho Chi Minh, Trotskyists, hippies, radical pacifists, and sundry others who alienated the social group they courted, the organized blue collar workers of the AFL-CIO. With respect to the McGovern campaign, this right wing of the Socialist Party followed the lead of AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a fierce anti-communist and supporter of American intervention in Southeast Asia, in adopting a policy of neutrality in the Presidential Election of 1972. This orientation struck others in the party as little more than de facto support for American imperialism and the Nixon Administration's bloody war in Viet Nam. This opposition to the Socialist Party's primary leaders were unified in their explicit rejection of the Vietnam conflagration and hostile to the conservative AFL-CIO bureaucracy headed by George Meany. They were themselves divided, however, on the question as to whether continued dedication on the part of "New Politics" adherents in the Democratic Party could transform that historic bulwark of the status quo into a principled party of the left, advancing a social democratic agenda. The pivotal turning point came at the end of December 1972, when the Socialist Party met in New York City in a Special Convention to discuss changing the name of the organization. It was argued by the main leadership group that the name of the organization not only alienated most Americans — the word "Socialist" being linked in the popular consciousness with the various "Actually Existing Socialisms" of the Soviet Union, China, and nations of Eastern Europe — but further was not reflective of the reality that the so-called "party" had abandoned use of the tactic of running its own candidates for public office since the late 1950s. The abandonment of the word "socialism" was seen by the opposition factions, on the other hand, as indicative of a lack of commitment of the leadership to the organization's socialist mission, a sort of kowtowing to conservative trade unionists and uninformed public opinion that would only accentuate the SP's slide towards conservatism in its domestic and international political outlook. The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which sought to work largely within the Democratic Party and liberal movements, and the Union for Democratic Socialism, which wanted to ally with peace and progressive forces outside the Democratic Party. (The DSOC later became the Democratic Socialists of America and the UDS later became the Socialist Party USA.) At the same time, and contributing indirectly to the larger splits, the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation voted in 1972 to merge with the much smaller Democratic Socialist Federation (based largely on New York Jewish trade unions and fraternal organizations); in 1973 the merged "SP-DSF" changed its name to "Social Democrats USA." Although most of SD USA's members were Democrats[citation needed], the organization maintained ties with both major political parties[citation needed] and supported a strongly interventionist foreign policy.[1] It was unwavering in its support for Israel, strongly supported the 2003 war in Iraq, and came to generally favor the international policies of the United States under George W. Bush[citation needed], a stance which was also at odds with the views of the Continental European social democratic parties.[2] Please enumerate your specific concerns with the above, outside of the fact that there are insufficient sources showing, which is obvious. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Alternatively as a basis for restoration, here is an earlier version: Origins [March 1, 2010 version] By 1972, the American left was deeply split into a multiplicity of factional groupings. Even a numerically small organization, such as the historic Socialist Party, was bitterly divided over questions such as the socialist position on the Vietnam War and the perspective to be taken by socialists towards the "New Politics" of insurgent Democratic Party Presidential hopeful George McGovern. Central was the question which had tormented the Socialist Party since its Convention of 1912 — what should be the organization's policy towards those advocating syndicalism or socialism established by revolutionary means? On the Socialist Party's Right were many of the primary officials of the party, including Max Shachtman, Tom Kahn, Charles S. Zimmerman, Bayard Rustin, Paul Feldman, Penn Kemble and Joan Suall, who saw in communism a heinous social system which must be stopped from expansion through the application of military force. They therefore opposed the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and looked askance from the motley anti-war movement, which included Maoists, supporters of Ho Chi Minh, Trotskyists, hippies, radical pacifists, and sundry others who alienated the social group they courted, the organized blue collar workers of the AFL-CIO. With respect to the McGovern campaign, this Right Wing of the Socialist Party followed the lead of AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a fierce anti-communist and supporter of American intervention in Southeast Asia, in adopting a policy of neutrality in the Presidential Election of 1972. This orientation struck others in the party as little more than de facto support for American imperialism and the Nixon Administration's bloody war in Viet Nam. This opposition to the Socialist Party's primary leaders were unified in their explicit rejection of the Vietnam conflagration and hostile to the conservative AFL-CIO bureaucracy headed by George Meany. They were themselves divided, however, on the question as to whether continued dedication on the part of "New Politics" adherents in the Democratic Party could transform that historic bulwark of the status quo into a principled party of the left, advancing a social democratic agenda. The pivotal turning point came at the end of December 1972, when the Socialist Party met in New York City in a Special Convention to discuss changing the name of the organization. It was argued by the main leadership group that the name of the organization not only alienated most Americans — the word "Socialist" being linked in the popular consciousness with the various "Actually Existing Socialisms" of the Soviet Union, China, and nations of Eastern Europe — but further was not reflective of the reality that the so-called "party" had abandoned use of the tactic of running its own candidates for public office since the late 1950s. The abandonment of the word "socialism" was seen by the opposition factions, on the other hand, as indicative of a lack of commitment of the leadership to the organization's socialist mission, a sort of kowtowing to conservative trade unionists and uninformed public opinion that would only accentuate the SP's slide towards conservatism in its domestic and international political outlook. The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which sought to work largely within the Democratic Party and liberal movements, and the Union for Democratic Socialism, which wanted to ally with peace and progressive forces outside the Democratic Party. (The DSOC later became the Democratic Socialists of America and the UDS later became the Socialist Party USA.) At the same time, and contributing indirectly to the larger splits, the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation voted in 1972 to merge with the much smaller Democratic Socialist Federation (based largely on New York Jewish trade unions and fraternal organizations); in 1973 the merged "SP-DSF" changed its name to "Social Democrats USA." Although most of SD USA's members were Democrats[citation needed], the organization maintained ties with both major political parties[citation needed] and supported a strongly interventionist foreign policy.[1] It was unwavering in its support for Israel, strongly supported the 2003 war in Iraq, and came to generally favor the international policies of the United States under George W. Bush[citation needed], a stance which was also at odds with the views of the Continental European social democratic parties.[2] Carrite (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Combining elements of the two versions and stripping out anything that can be remotely reckoned as commentary, that would leave something like this:

Origins [proposed starting statement]

1 - By 1972, the American left was deeply split into a multiplicity of factional groupings. Even a numerically small organization, such as the historic Socialist Party, was bitterly divided over questions such as the socialist position on the Vietnam War, relations with different segments of the labor movement, and the perspective to be taken by socialists towards the "New Politics" of insurgent Democratic Party Presidential candidate George McGovern.

2 - On the Socialist Party's Right were many of the primary officials of the party, including Max Shachtman, Tom Kahn, Charles S. Zimmerman, Bayard Rustin, Paul Feldman, Penn Kemble and Joan Suall, who saw in communism a heinous social system which must be stopped from expansion through the application of military force. They therefore opposed the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and looked askance from the motley anti-war movement which alienated the social group they courted, the organized blue collar workers of the AFL-CIO.

3 - This orientation struck others in the party as little more than de facto support for American imperialism and the Nixon Administration's bloody war in Viet Nam.

4 - The turning point came at the end of December 1972, when the Socialist Party met in New York City in a Special Convention to discuss changing the name of the organization. It was argued by the main leadership group that the name of the organization not only alienated most Americans — the word "Socialist" being linked in the popular consciousness with the various "Actually Existing Socialisms" of the Soviet Union, China, and nations of Eastern Europe — but further was not reflective of the reality that the so-called "party" had abandoned use of the tactic of running its own candidates for public office since the late 1950s.

5 - The abandonment of the word "socialism" was seen by the opposition factions, on the other hand, as indicative of a lack of commitment of the leadership to the organization's socialist mission, a sort of caving in to conservative trade unionists and uninformed public opinion that would only accentuate the SP's slide towards conservatism in its domestic and international political outlook. Those espousing this view ultimately split into two groups, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which sought to work largely within the Democratic Party and liberal movements, and the Union for Democratic Socialism (later the Socialist Party, USA), which wanted to ally with peace and progressive forces outside the Democratic Party.

I guess that's it. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems more like a stand-alone article on the end of the Socialist Party than belonging here in an article on SDUSA. Wouldn't that make sense, and allow you to include more editors in the writing? (Of course, your focus on the split rings alarm bells to me.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, after reviewing the NYT coverage of the 1972 convention, I better appreciate and applaud many of the points made by Carrite. Please look at the 1968-1973 history here and at Socialist Party of America, and see whether my NYT-based account was adequate.

The NYT quoted or cited Harrington's opposition to the name change, as being lacking clarity (this from the fellow who used to mystify crowds with Chestertonian paradoxes like "anti-social socialization"!) and caving in to liberal trade unionists. I didn't include Harrington's counter-arguments, but they could go in.

The pro-name-change argument about confusion with the SWP and SLP, could go also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is not OR or a blog

You need to source things. I am not going to waste time discussing your OR. I am not your history Professor, and but were I would expect some attempt at documentation.

Previously, I endorsed Shakescene as having a good grasp of the history and (and now I'll add some demonstrated competence with WP policies), and I would suggest you get Shakescene's approval before you start adding more OR. Does it seem like a good idea that you two should agree and then I'll comment on your proposal? (I am also willing to comment on Shakescene's work immediately.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is figure out the basis of your objection for the stubbing out of this article. As I mentioned, I am not arguing the fact that earlier versions of this piece, dating back to its origin in 2003, were lacking in sourcing. You've flagged several times without stating the basis of your objections. Here's your chance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 above. Those passages are all factually accurate and sourceable, in my estimation. You are free to be as disdainful as you'd like, but don't say that the opportunity for comment prior to restoration wasn't extended. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the WP policy. Challenged material must be sourced. Don't add things that are your original research. Period.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, but I do understand the policy, which is why I have not restored any of the above until it is sourced. I ask once again for you to state your specific objections, although the last time I did that you laid 3 more flags on top of the article without responding, as the edit history will show. I'm going to step away from the article for the day to let things cool down a little. Stop complaining about the lack of sources, please, things will be sourced out. What is desired is for you to state (1) What specifics of the above origins paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 you feel are inaccurate or unfair; (2) What about the article currently showing you feel is inaccurate, skewed, or unfair. Please state the concrete basis for your stubification and multiple flagging of this article. That is all. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are comments hidden in the flags, which you should consider.

You don't even attempt to reference a very subjective history, and you use grossly POV terms. For one example: Where do you reference that those people were members or officers of one faction or another or of SDUSA?---not using OR but using secondary sources? (Some of them are dead, but some may be living, so you may violate BLP, which is taken seriously.)

If it doesn't have secondary sources, then put it on a blog, or give it to DSA, SPUSA, SDUSA1 or SDUSA2 to publish.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Carrite helped me greatly with the sources, and I've tried to write a fair summary of the NYT. Sorry again for my excessive and pre-emptive harping about WP:Reliable, when you were the editor most helpful with providing reliable sources!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lipset

I provided a proper citation to Massing, which is laughed at by Lipset, the latter being a peer-reviewed academic article by a politically saavy former president of the ASA (and APSA?).

Lipset can be used a source for the split-up of the Socialist Party, although his statement that the the SD, USA people supported the war is POV, unless another source has quotations from some resolutions passed by them, etc.

Muravshik (in his article on Kemble) describes the stance as wanting a negotiated end to the war and opposing a unilateral pull-out and being repulsed by McGovern's statement that he would go to Hanoi on his knees. (It may be useful to remember the Vietnamese Communist Party's murder of the only large Trotskyist movement in world history, roughly 30-50 thousand, in the 1950s; those who had read Dwight Macdonald's Politics or those associated with Max Shachtman (e.g. Michael Harrington, Irving Howe, etc.) certainly did.)

• Dwight Macdonald reported in his Politics magazine (March-April 1947, p. 77) about the assassinations of Trotskyists in Saigon. (I quote from the WP article on Vietnamese Trotskyists, which needs works).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In 1939, after the Hitler-Stalin pact, communist organisations were banned in France and Indochina. ... Trotskyists were all but extinguished as a political force .... In 1945, the ICP emerged as the principal organised political force within the Vietminh national front and led the struggle for power in the 1945 August Revolution.

The two trotskyist parties (La Lutte or Struggle and the International Communist League led by Ho Huu Tuong) regrouped in 1945 and proceeded to rebuild their forces and prepare for the approaching conflict with the British occupation forces under General Gracey and the incoming French forces moving to re-establish colonial rule. Ta Thu Thau emerged from prison in poor health but still the most popular leader of the worker's movement in the South and the most well known trotskyist in Vietnam. Returning to Saigon from a consultation with the new Vietminh Government in Hanoi, he was murdered by Vietminh adherents near Quang Ngai in September 1945. Many other prominent trotskyists were also murdered throughout Vietnam.

Sources

• Ngo Van (2000) Viet-nam 1920-1945: Révolution et contre-révolution sous la domination coloniale, Paris: Nautilus Editions [in French].

External links

Vietnamese Trotskyism by Robert J. Alexander [10]

Not a so-called "Schachtmanite" (despite numerous unreliable statements to the contrary), Penn Kemble founded an organization called "Negotiations Now".

I would hope that other editors would stop attacking my good faith and get to work finding proper citations for anything they wish to include.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR

JSTOR contains some scholarly mentions of SDUSA.

• The View from Washington Asian Affairs Vol. 6, No. 2 (Nov. - Dec., 1978), pp. 134-135 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30171704
  • This quotes a letter from SDUSA and many other organizations condemning McGovern's silence on the repression in Vietnam, after he called for action against Cambodia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Minutes of a Secret Caucus Within the Socialist International JOEL FREEDMAN and CHRIS DE RIGGS World Affairs, Vol. 147, No. 1 (Summer 1984), pp. 37-42 Published by: World Affairs Institute Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672007
  • A document apparently found on Grenada, communicated by the head of the SDUSA. It describes the attempt of revolutionary Marxist socialists in Latin America to influence the Socialist International. In particular, they hate SDUSA, and charge it with being a CIA organization (personally, I note the similarity with the stupid leftist in Barcelona (film), talking about the "AFL-CIA"!).

• Marx, Engels, and America's Political Parties. Seymour Martin Lipset. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) Vol. 2, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 90-104

Published by: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40255846

• • Page 92 has a brief synopsis of SDUSA, DSA/DSOC, and SPUSA.

• The Significance of the 1992 Election

Seymour Martin Lipset PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 7-16 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/419496

• • Page 14 notes that both SDUSA and DSA supported Clinton.

• The Reagan-Kirkpatrick Policies and the United Nations Seymour Maxwell Finger Foreign Affairs Vol. 62, No. 2 (Winter, 1983) (pp. 436-457) URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20041826
  • Page 444 has a brief mention of Gershman's SDUSA background.
  • This cites a reliable source, which have something more: Bernard Nossiter, "New Team at U.N.: Common Roots and Philosophies," The New York Times, March 3, 1983
    • The article requires a subscription which I don't have. Here is the informaiton (Apparently a lot on Gershman):
    • NEW TEAM AT U.N.: COMMON ROOTS AND PHILOSOPHIES By BERNARD D. NOSSITER, Special to the New York Times (The New York Times); Foreign Desk March 3, 1981, Tuesday Late City Final Edition, Section A, Page 2, Column 3, 1239 words

There are other hits on JSTOR, which seemed minor or unreliable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar

There was a debate between Gershman and Harrington:

• Gershman, Carl (1980). "Totalitarian menace (Controversies: Detente and the left after Afghanistan)". Society. 18 (1). Springer: 9–15. doi:10.1007/BF02694835. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |Issn= ignored (|issn= suggested) (help)

• Harrington, Michael (1980). "Nuclear threat (Controversies: Detente and the left after Afghanistan)". Society. 18 (1). Springer: 16–21. doi:10.1007/BF02694836. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |Issn= ignored (|issn= suggested) (help)

Meyerson 2002 Dissent on SDUSA conference

DSOC/DSA's Harold Meyerson, also the editor of The American Prospect and former editor of the LA times, has an article in Dissent about one of the last SDUSA conferences, where they invited people to their left and to their right to talk. He describes how many rejected neoconservatism, even by one father's son!

• Meyerson, Harold (2002). "Solidarity, Whatever". Dissent. 49 (Fall): 16. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Kahn, Rustin, Randolph

I don't have access to the biographies of Randolph (Jervis, I think) and Rustin (Jervis?, and I think John D'Emilio), which probably discuss Kahn's role and other SP members. Help of Americans would be appreciated.

One can cite Rachel Horowitz's eulogy of Kahn, which is at the SD, USA (archived) website.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Horowitz's eulogy was published. (Rachel Horowitz, who is alive, is certainly notable, and deserves coverage in her own right, but unfortunately my time and library resources are lacking.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done

It's good to see that the wrecking ball was followed by new construction. The front end is still missing but that will be forthcoming, I'm sure. Some reduction of sub-heads and sub-sub-heads would be advisable, but it's really quite a decent piece of work, to my eyes. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (I had hoped that adding DSA's Harold Meyerson as a source might help people relax!)

Thanks for upgrading the assessment of the article to B-class! (Praise from friends is welcome and heart-warning, but recognition from an editor with whom I've exchanged growls is sincere recognition indeed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding (1) the "front end", which I'm interpreting as "origins". I believe that there should be one article on the end of the SP, which would describe the last convention. This should be used by the articles on DSA, SDUSA, and (McReynolds) SP.

As I understand the story, the proto-SDUSA won every vote against the combined caucuses led by Harrington- and McReynolds (or his later associates). I have not read the (apparently 3 days of) New York Times coverage, but have cited only the NYT story whose headline documents the name change.

Perhaps McReynolds had left long before the last convention? Regardless, I am unaware of statement of any concern or recognition of the existence of the McReynolds-reconstituted SPUSA by SDUSA. It seemed to me that the existing SP article, which states that there was a split and then describes first the McReynolds "SP", then DSA, then SDUSA, has severe problems with POV, undue, OR/secondary, and probably COI: Using the web of a SP state organization as the primary source is pretty bad scholarship, imho.

I was concerned about the pigeon-holing of SDUSA as "Shachtmanites", particularly since left-wing and right-wing websites portray SDUSA as a Jewish/Trotskyist/Shachtmanite conspiracy that took over foreign policy (*shudder* of horror & disbelief). It seems important to present the leadership roles of Bayard Rustin & Norman Hill (and their carrying on the Randolph tradition), as well as that of Sidney Hook. (And featuring Rustin & Hook does seem to reflect the publications and documented activities of SDUSA: Shanker and Lane Kirkland could also be mentioned as advisory board members, who helped SDUSA.) On the other hand, you can find in Democratiya, a description of Shachtman by Kahn, if somebody wants to describe Shachtman or trace his influence (from beyond the grave ...).

Regarding what I shall call (2) the "back end", the two attempts to revive SDUSA:

I believe that a small notice of the attempts is appropriate here. It is not clear that the revived groups are WP-notable, because they are so small and seem to lack high-profile members; thus, I believe that a larger description of their activities could be spun off as a separate article. Would that be agreeable?

Thanks for your kind words, and recognition that I have been trying to improve the article. I am sure that you have a lot of knowledge and should be able to improve it further in many ways.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's proper proportion now. Chances are that if someone does a Google search for SDUSA, they will bump into one or both of those organizations. This article should explain what they are, which it does. A year ago the balancing act was maintaining proportion between these groups with the original organization a mere aside. This is a far more satisfactory situation, historically speaking. You are correct that neither of these groups would survive a challenge at AfD on their own merits, which is why they are best dealt with as a footnote here. No disrespect to the involved comrades, of course, just stating facts.

The New York Times covered the 1972 convention with daily articles which can be used to write a proper "origins" section. Harrington's memoirs should also be consulted. Let me know if you have trouble coming up with the NYT stuff and I can either email stuff to you or, if you're uncomfortable with that, upload pdfs to my website and you can grab them from there anonymously. I don't have the Times URLs, the material was circulated via a newsgroup. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions.

My library lacks a NYT subscription, so one of your suggestions would be helpful.

Also, I shall not be able to edit much for a week. I would guess that Isserman's biography of Harrington discusses these events, which may have conributed to the anxiety attacks described in MH's Fragments of a Century. Maybe Irving Howe's biography says something?

Thanks again! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing existing posts on this talk page

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments and WP:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Comments that others wrote or will write on this page which may seem incorrect or irrelevant should never be deleted outright or materially altered, although sometimes they can be archived or hidden with an explanatory note between Template:collapse top and Template:collapse bottom. (However, these are better-accepted practices on User talk pages than on article talk pages.) On the other hand, I don't think anyone's going to object strongly to editing one's own comments here, if they haven't been responded to and if the editing isn't too long after the original post. [If an editor's own comments have been responded to, or otherwise acted upon, and the editor then changes his or her mind, enclosing deletable material (such as an altered "support" or "oppose") between <s> and </s> will run a horizontal strike through the letters without erasing the words themselves. This is a common convention that most editors will understand.] Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted an attack on Freedom House, per WP policy on off-topic attacks. I numbered statements (in an old statement by an editor no longer active here, apparently) to which I replied; at least two statements were BLP violations. I don't believe that I changed anything else. (I corrected mis-statements of my own, with the strike-out facility you noted.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Succesor organizations?

There seem to be two successor organizations. Another editor, on a user-talk page, suggested that there be a stand-alone article on any successor organizations, so not to give undue weight to them. I endorse this proposal. (I believe that a short summary of the successors, as currently exists, is fine, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See above. The successor organizations would have their articles vaporized at AfD sooner or later. There was recently a mass annihilation of histories of tiny Trotskyist groups and these organizations would be in the same size range, perhaps with even less sourcing, and would face the same fate. The alternative would be a long disambiguation section at the top. This is a pretty good solution as it sits, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You have convinced me. (It seems that we have consensus that the present short section is okay, although some independent or reliable sources (or both) should be added ASAP. If any of the groups gets national attention or becomes notable, then some expansion may then be advisable.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Center-left"

Social democracy may be a center-left ideology in most of the world, but it's definately left in the US. Or is the SDUSA a special case? I thought I saw it discussed that it was relatively moderate... I'm not sure. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are social democrats and social democrats. Neil Kinnock was a democratic socialist, which cannot be said of Tony Blair, who is center left. Olof Palme was publicly left (one the days when he was not privately coordinating defense policy with NATO).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question and to remain relevant to this article, I should state that nobody familiar with SDUSA and familiar with socialist/labor/liberal politics who has written on this page has suggested a gross unfairness with the "center left" description. Others have suggested that "centrist" or "conservative" might be considered, but I (and I believe others) would oppose such a description, for reasons discussed above.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside perspective

At first glance the article seems rather unorganized and isn't focussing on its subject. It start already in the lead with that solidarnoc piece which seems to be randomly interjected there. Rather on focussing primarily on the party itsself, the articles focus on various personalities associated with it and their career, influence or "conspiracy theories" related to them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

SDUSA is most often mentioned because of the activities of its members, rather than the activities sponsored by SDUSA itself. This "bagel/donut syndrome" is typical of ideological political organizations. There is a paragraph of transition, mentioning the role of similar SP-connected organizations in the new left and civil rights movement (citing Maurice Isserman's If I had a hammer and Aldon Morris's monograph, which discusses movement "halfway houses") between the SDUSA-sponsored activities and then its members' activities. SDUSA is most often discussed because of its members' activities.

The discussion of the members has been assembled from pre-existing articles, which I edited. These sections especially need copy-editing—some like Feldman especially need shortening—as noted above (in previous discussions). Feel free to help!

Solidarnosc was the focus of a WP:DYK item. To help the hundreds of readers visiting the article on its DYK day, a sketch of the Solidarnosc connection (with citations) was added to the lead. I'll review the lead and probably shorten the discussion of Solidarity, per your concerns.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether Soldarnisc was a WP:DYK item has zero relevance to this article. Also you seem to misunderstand me somewhat, I have no objection about the solidarnosc thing being a part of the article (on the contrary imho it definitely belongs there), but it doesn't belong into the lead in this form. I definitely appreciate expanding the article and removing conspiracy stuff or questionable content, but that's no reason for turning it into a somewhat messy patchwork, which makes it even harder at first glance to understand what the SDUSA actually is. If other editors complain about that aspect, I very well can understand them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I simplified the lead. The structure of the article is (a) historical origins (b) activities significance, explaining that SDUSA was mentioned more for its members' activities than for its own activities, and (c) members. I invited you and others to help with copy editing the members' sections in particular. (Also, it is usual that it is difficult to understand topics where one has little background knowledge: This article presupposed an understanding of the 20th century US political history.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem for readers has little to do with background knowledge, but that aside such an article on movements or parties should be somewhat readable and self contained for (almost) all readers to begin with. It is (or should be primarily) about a basic description of some organisation not a complicated piece of advanced theory.

To be a bit more concrete regarding the "disorganized" impression of the article. The first sentence describes it as an assocation, but then continues to describes it as a successor party of the socialist party. So is it now a party or an association? Later in the article the article keeps jumping around between the socialist party and SDUSA using it partially synonymously.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "advanced theory"? (It is typical of ideological parties/organizations that their history involves debates.)

The Socialist Party changed its name to SDUSA in December 1972. Despite its organizational continuity with the Socialist Party, SDUSA stopped referring to itself as a party. Would please explain specifically where there is reference to SDUSA as a "party"? I used control-f to examine every use of "party" in the document, and found no mistaken usage. Therefore, I don't understand your complaint. Would you rephrase it for me? Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

member activities

Imho this should extremely condensed. A lot text deals with biographical description of those people before the SDUSA even existed. The article should only summarizes their most importat activities as SDUSA members and nothing else, the other stuff belongs into the WP biographies of those persons.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: There might be~also technical issue, cut & jobs for larger text blocks from other articles (unless carefully documented) are strictly speaking a copyright violation, as the original authors of those do not appear in the version history.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I imported text from other WP articles, clearly signalling that I was importing a section from the source article with a pithy & insightful comment(!). Anybody who wants to trace the history of this article can easily find the history and the source(s).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kmhkmh!

There has been previous discussion of the structure of the article, by several editors. In general, since the 1940s, the socialist party and its successor organizations have been so small that these social-democratic organizations are known mainly through the activities of their members. It is important to discuss the political history of the socialist party, particularly of A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Norman Hill in this article since their politics is usually understood with respect to an attempt to build a political coalition of labor unions, liberal political activists (often active in the Democratic Party), churches, etc.: These activities peaked with the 1963 March on Washington and the 1966-1968 Freedom Budget. Their later domestic politics is often described (partly in criticism) as an attempt to rebuild and expand that coalition (at least during the 1970s). There is great continuity during this period, at least on domestic politics.

While these members were active in other organizations, it seems to be consensus that there was so much consensus among their activities and projects that they are often discussed as SDUSA activities. (Please try Googling,e.g. Google Scholar, SDUSA and check how much discussion is about individual members' activities versus organization activities.)

As I have acknowledged before, the discussions of members' activities often should be condensed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there has been a transformation of quantity to quality here, the Member Activities section has clogged this to the gills so that the actual history of the organization, which should be the subject of an encyclopedia article, is lost. I'd suggest a severe merger and cut of this material, with a Members List instituted linking to member bios. The heavily glossed footnotes are also far more massive than they need to be. Carrite (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine to reduce the description of the members to only a paragraph each. (I expanded the member-activities section before writing Tom Kahn and Carl Gershman. I would say that Rachelle Horowitz needs an article, but the other prominent members have their own articles.)

When the RfC has closed, I would like to get around to expanding the support of Solidarity, documented in New America, as we have discussed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT 1974

• Fraser, C. Gerald (1974). "Socialists seek to transform the Democratic Party". New York Times. p. 11. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What I learned today

After spinning New America film for five or six hours, before my wife kicked me out of my library to enjoy a gorgeous afternoon, I feel like I've learned some things.

1. Far from being a cheerleading squad for the neo-conservatives, the views of the neo-cons were contrasted with those of the (right) social democrats in an article in 1977. This is not to say there weren't certain similarities in ideology between the two with respect to the international situation. Just that the two were emphatically not synonymous.

2. I gained an appreciation for how important Bayard Rustin was to the SPA in the 1960s. He was a major figure in the party, with a higher profile than that of Philip Randolph.

3. I am struck by how much more radical the early 1960s SPA was than the early 1970s SDUSA. They truly were two different organizations. There are obvious organizational and institutional continuities, but it really was a day-and-night situation. Whatever political expedient originally lay behind making 1972/73 a terminal point, I think there is a solid case to be made for this as a legitimate terminal and starting point here.

4. That said, SDUSA never were cheerleaders either for the Vietnam war, or Ronald Reagan, or the Contras — at least through 1983. I know that my original version here intimated that they were pro-Vietnam war, but they weren't. Their hatred of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, the CPUSA, and Brezhnev's Soviet Union was visceral and I think the current version captures that mentality nicely.

There are some things I really don't like about this article, it seems bloated at this point and needs some serious chopping, and I hate the footnoting. On the big question, though, I feel like the general presentation of the group's ideology is nicely done. Carrite (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What an interesting report, with many surprises, most pleasant.

0. Tell you wife that you cheered me up, today, with the barn-star and the editing, before which I was thinking of pathogenic yeast ....

1. Neo-conservatives.' Democritayas issue with Horowitz's Tom Kahn biography has several discussions of neoconservatism, which are worth reading (perhaps quickly).

• Horowitz, Rachelle (2007) [2005], "Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection" (PDF), Democratiya (merged with Dissent in 2009), 11 (Winter): 204–251 {{citation}}: External link in |issue=, |origyear=, and |volume= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)

2. I am particularly pleased to hear about Bayard Rustin's importance, since David M's blog etc. (wink, wink; nod, nod) suggested that he had little to do with SDUSA. I have not read D'Emilio's biography, but I have been impressed by his independent and insightful analysis of current events (e.g., that it has been unfortunate that the LGBT community has prioritized gay marriage instead of stopping state involvement in religious ceremonies). I weep when I think of my lost library, which had Jervis Anderson's biographies of Rustin and Randolph and my copy of Down the Line (as well as Harrington's memoirs, ...): I would have liked to read Anderson's discussion again. Perhaps the Freedom Budget should be our next big project.

3. I agree with some of your comments. I listened to a tape of Norman Thomas and I have to admit that his politics sounds more like David M. If the Debs caucus was organized enough to control New America 66-68 (during which time it must have gotten greedy and provoked a backlash), there must have been a large chunk of the Party who enjoyed spending a lot of time losing elections and being pacifists.

4. I am glad that you agree about the Viet Nam War. It is hard to find anybody pro VN War! It would be great if you could expand on the anti-war coverage, using New America. BTW, about Buthelezzi, did you read the interview of the former labor representative? He noted that some serious people took the Chief very seriously, e.g. Nelson Mandela. (Arendt Lipjhart did also.)

Best regards, and good night!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Correcting myself just a bit, now having finished looking at the second reel of film it is very clear that in 1983-85 SDUSA were cheerleading for the Contras, with a Nicaraguan opposition leader as a keynote speaker at the 1985 convention, articles on the Sandinista election "farce," print interviews with other Nicaraguan oppositionists, etc., etc.... Carrite (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll also emphasize that the SP was hardline against the Vietnam war, consistently, profusely, and loudly, at least from 1965. SDUSA was all about the official organized labor movement. There's a very close parallel between the "Militants" and the "Old Guard" of the 1930s SPA. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)