Talk:Socialist Party of America

message: 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.
**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)
thread_title:  Election box metadata 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Too little early history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  I'll see what I can do 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dueling websites? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent Vanity Posting 

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Unclear statement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have a 1967-8 little red membership card—signed by Natl Chairman Darlington Hoopes and Natl Sec. George Woywod—and dues notices from about 1968, from the "Socialist Party USA"  (legally, the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation). The problem is that some clarification is necessary for those looking for "Socialist Party, U.S.A." since they (who might know very little) might be looking for either organization. The SPUSA (1972) date isn't necessary except to distinguish it from the 1901 one. The difficulty is in doing that in the clearest, most useful way. [For some hints on different ways of using "For" and "Other Uses" templates (hatnotes) see Template:Otheruses and its links.] —— Shakescene (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Very confusing first lines 

message: On the article for the Socialist Party USA, it says that the Socialist Party of America changed its name in the 1960s to "Socialist Party USA."  But when the party drafted a new constitution in 1973, Wikipedia consideres the party to have stopped existing and considers the Socialist Party USA to have been created.  Most experts on socialism and the media consider the party that exists now to be the same party that existed before 1973.  Wouldn't be simpler to say that the Socialist Party of America and the Socialist Party USA is the same party and merge the two articles?  It seems to me that they are the same party; they just changed their name in 1962, and adopted a new party constitution in 1973.  I propose that we merge the two articles and call the new article "Socialist Party (United States)". Sbrianhicks (talk) 18 December 2009
¶ It's nowhere near that simple. (There may be something in the relevant articles that needs rewriting in order to make this inherently-confusing situation clearer.) 
# There was organizational continuity from the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation (which often also called itself the "Socialist Party USA") to the Socialist Party of America-Democratic Socialist Federation (a merger of the SP-SDF with the DSF in 1972) to Social Democrats, USA (a renaming in 1973). The leaders of what would be SDUSA had led the SP-SDF and won several convention votes and membership referenda on the merger and renaming. The same National Office continued at 1182 Broadway with the same National Secretary (Joan Suall), the same staff, the same treasury, the same membership lists and the same seat in the Socialist International. [See Michael Harrington's memoir, The Long-Distance Runner, for an account of how DSA finally got its own seat in the International against vigorous opposition from SDUSA and its allies in the AFL-CIO. The present SPUSA has never had more than an associate membership.] Joan Suall's husband, Irwin Suall, (who managed the ADL) explained informally when the SP-DSF was renaming itself SDUSA, that its lawyers had carefully retained SP-SDF as the name of a (nominal) educational or historical spin-off in order to prevent the name going up for grabs to any left-wing faction. Another editor here has said (check the relevant talk pages) that in the early 1970s SDUSA in fact was able to use legal threats to keep the current SPUSA from using (or in SDUSA's view misappropriating) the name "Socialist Party of America".
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# Glad to answer any questions that I can. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly a similarity, and many of the early members of what is now the SP-USA had earlier belonged to the SP-SDF (e.g. Samuel Friedman and David McReynolds). But you are in fact talking about two different, though historically-connected organizations. The Wikipedia articles for the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) and the Progressive Party (United States, 1924) should not be merged, even though some members of La Follette's party supported Henry Wallace's. What you say about the DSA and SDUSA leaving third-party politics (not electoral politics) is an argument for not merging their articles with the Socialist Party (1901) one. But in fact a clear  majority of that Socialist Party had decided against running outside the Democratic Party by 1960 (when they ran no Presidential candidate), and this was ratified by the victory of the Realignment Caucus over the Debs Caucus in the 1960's. (The Realignment Caucus would later break into the Unity and the Coalition Caucuses, because while both worked within the Democratic Party, the Democrats themselves had split over the Vietnam War and social issues after the 1964 victories of LBJ and the Civil Rights Act.) The current Socialist Party is as entitled as any other democratic-left group to view itself as the true inheritor of Socialist Party traditions, but they would be those of a pre-1960 or pre-1950 Socialist Party without the subsequent history where a majority of their comrades turned away from their electoral strategy. For Wikipedia to treat the two organizations as one is to rewrite history and to take sides in a decades-old dispute. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Socialist Party of America/Socialist Party USA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Prominent members 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trotsky, Bukharin, Kollontai 

message: Dear editors,
I have rewritten the history so that it avoids close paraphrasing of paragraphs from the "history" published by the Socialist Party USA.
Here are the parallel passages that I eliminated:
*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman ....
In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the
SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party.
The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the
Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and
in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the
Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within
the Democratic Party.
*WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist ....  Shachtman and his lieutenant Michael_Harrington advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization.A Century of Struggle: Socialist Party USA, 1901-2001. New York: Socialist Party USA, n.d. [2001]. http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/literature/spusa-history.pdf
* SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators.
* WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protesters outside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates.
* SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice.
* WP: the Shachtmanites maintained the strongest tendency to ... democratic centralism
* SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election  the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party....
* WP:  During the 1972 presidential election, ... the Debs Caucus supported the independent candidacy of Benjamin Spock, many of the Coalition Caucus supported ...  George McGovern ..., and  those in the Unity Caucus tended to support Hubert Humphrey and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. ...  The party, following the lead of ... the ... AFL-CIO ... declared its neutrality between McGovern and incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon ....
* SPUSA At the end of 1972,  ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.
:* WP: Socialist Party USA (not Socialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.Busky 2000, pp. 164.
*SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics),
*WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislativelyWinger, Richard. "Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System," in Multiparty Politics in America, Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gerber, Alan. "The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections," Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 no. 2 (1996) and judiciallyFitts, Michael A. "Back to the Future: Enduring Dilemmas Revealed in the Supreme Court's Treatment of Political Parties", in The U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral Process (2nd ed.) David K. Ryden, ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002  pp. 103-105 and passim entrenched two-party system.
*SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ...
* WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent ....Minutes of October 2006 Socialist Party National Committee meeting.
Some of these parallelisms are trifling. However, some seem more substantial, and the series of them seemed to call for more extensive rewriting, so that we are sure of being in compliance with WP policy.
I want to draw your attention to a more serious issue—that I believe that many of the assertions were in error, and understandably given that they seemed to originate in the SPUSA history, may have resulted in NPOV/RS issues. I have tried to be fair in rewriting some of the history, and have asked for reviews from a number of other editors, but I would appreciate your help in helping the article reach NPOV. 
I believe that some of the editors here have declared that they have been associated with SPUSA, in compliance with WP:COI policy and in good faith. One  of our editors has declared being a member of SPUSA, SDUSA, and DSA! I should do no less and declare that I have strong admiration for and indeed warm feelings for Michael Harrington, and that such affections may influence my editing.
I thank all of our editors for their contributions to this article.
Sincerely,
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPUSA history pamphlet 

message: At risk of discord, I would like to point out some changes I made that seem to me important, and which may well irritate our editors with the strongest SPUSA ties, regretfully.
This was the old article's statement:
* WP:  The Debs Caucus finally broke with the party in 1972 to form the Union for Democratic Socialism.  ,,, The UDS became the Socialist Party USA in 1973 ...
Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the  Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. 
This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA).(Pay-fee for article)
I would rather let my revisions, which have received helpful editing by a number of other talented editors, speak for themselves rather than lay out a long critique. Of course, I would welcome any comments or criticisms of the edits, and hope that you all would not be shy with correcting me.
In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifics of revision 

message: :It was late when I wrote before, and I wrote "Draper" instead of "Drucker".
:Why the sign "Draper" slid over the signified Drucker: Both Draper brothers were serious independent scholars, with Hal being a Trotskyssant Marxist socialist to the left of Shachtman (and translator of Heinrich Heine). Peter Drucker has been the world's leading business-management writer, since the 1930-1950s or so. A younger Peter Drucker is a member of the Trotskyssant organization Solidarity, and this Drucker has written a fine biography of Shachtman. 
As noted previously, DraperPeter Drucker's biography of Shachtman is an excellent resource. Here are 3 facts from Drucker:
# P. 288. Shachtman emphasized the working-class and labor unions as the core agents of socialist liberation, his "version of Marxist orthodoxy", from which Harrington drifted as he first considered and then emphasized middle-class activists (p. 288). 
# P. 305. McReynolds quit the SP in 1970. (McReynolds's SPUSA-Oregon blog states repeatedly that he quite in 1971, I'll note. I've seen several newspaper accounts from 1970 quoting McReynolds as leaving then, so I believe his memory has bumped his resignation forward a year.)
# P. 307: The majority and Harrington's  caucus had opposing viewpoints in nearly every issue of New America.
IMHO, the first (1) fits better in articles on Shachtman or on Harrington. This article is about the SPA, not about two "theorists".
The second (2) could be added. DraperDrucker states that McReynolds was the leader of the left-wing, but he doesn't state how large it was (e.g. 1966-1971) or call it the "Debs caucus". The third (3) is not enlightening. It would be better to expand on the substance of the debates rather than stating that there were disagreements.
In short, noting that McReynolds quit in 1970 is fine. However, most of the sources ignore the Debs caucus, so it's hard to explain any/the significance of McReynolds, without doing OR. The Debs caucus stuck around through 1972, at least. (It would be of interest to find out estimates of overlap between the 3 organizations.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistaken use of "Draper" (for "Drucker") was contagious! Another reminder to use the most reliable, high quality sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

message: I updated the infobox, which previously listed 3 successors: First SPUSA, then DSOC, finally SDUSA. I wrote "majority" SDUSA, then "minorities" DSOC and SPUSA. This may not make everybody happy, but it was the best I could think of. Legally, only SDUSA was the successor. Spiritually, all three have strong ties, which I tried to respect. 
Finally, I noted that "dissolution" involved a "name change" to SDUSA. It would be better to change the the infobox, and choose a neutral term rather than "dissolution". 
(We seem to have successfully removed "dissolution" from many of the articles, particularly the many state SPUSA articles, with good will, although the details vary.) 
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Socialist Party of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510075336/https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/1989_randolph.htm to http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/1989_randolph.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151019124831/http://www.democracyforcuba.org/images/stories/media/UM2/vol.5no.2a.pdf to http://www.democracyforcuba.org/images/stories/media/UM2/vol.5no.2a.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428060908/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F06%2F21%2F1410236&mode=thread&tid=25 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F06%2F21%2F1410236&mode=thread&tid=25
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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