No to Separatism

 

To advance the careers of a handful of members of the ruling class, workers are being set against each other by Scottish nationalists. The question of independence once more threatens relations between Scottish and  English/Welsh workers. Scottish workers are being asked to trust in the local ruling class rather than in the solidarity and unity with fellow workers. We cannot easily achieve combined working-class action by declaring there are supposed national differences which distinguish Scottish workers from, say, their English brothers and sisters. And certainly it is not aided by identifying with Scottish businessmen and landowners because of some imaginary concept of a shared ‘nationality’. 

To combine to defend our class is the strategy of liberation, not separatist notions of any Scottish constitutional sovereignty. The Socialist Party does not fall into the trap of the ‘progressive’ facade of nationalism as promoted by some on the Left. 

Sturgeon of the SNP is once more rattling her claymore calling for a new referendum. First, it was Brexit as the excuse, then it was the pandemic which became the reason, now it is Boris Johnson’s corruption as justifying another vote on independence.

“...Scotland faces two very different futures. We can decide to take the powers we need to rebuild our economy and society into our own hands, with a future as an independent country, working with our friends in Europe and building a fairer economy. Or we can remain tied to a Westminster system that is dragging us in the wrong direction and which with every day that passes is slipping deeper into a mire of Tory sleaze…”

But, as we have witnessed, in the Salmond-Sturgeon who is lying, power politics always remain the unstated position.

As Marx pointed out, “If they speak consciously and openly to the working class, then they summarise their philanthropy in the following words: It is better to be exploited by one’s fellow-countrymen than by foreigners.”

What we in the Socialist Party’s Edinburgh and Glasgow branches are saying is independence will not improve our condition one iota. Only class struggle could do that and only with difficulty. Such success depends on close ties with similar movements in England and elsewhere.

We are not defending ‘British nationalism’ or the unity of the United Kingdom in any way. That would be an endorsement for the status quo, something we do not support. We do not argue that the present constitutional arrangement benefits ordinary people either.

The freedom of Scottish workers can only come about by overthrowing capitalism itself. If this is not done, no amount of separatism can ever succeed in bringing freedom. Instead of tragically wasting time fostering nationalism, workers should be struggling for a socialist society without national borders.

‘Because the condition of the workers of all countries is the same, because their interests are the same, their enemies the same, they must also fight together, they must oppose the brotherhood of the bourgeoisie of all nations with a brotherhood of the workers of all nations.’ so said Engels. 

Lie with dogs and get fleas

 

Serial party-founder, George Galloway, launches a unionist party, ‘All for Unity’, which will stand candidates in all eight regions of the country.

His fellow members include right-wingers such as UKIP and Tommy Robinson supporters

During the  2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign Galloway said, "I have always hated nationalism. My flag is red. I care nothing for either the Scottish or the British flags.” 

A sentiment shared by the Socialist Party even if Galloway’s later Brexit support suggested that he was indeed a British nationalist and that the Union Jack was indeed his flag.

To be clear, by refusing to join the Scottish separatists and advocate for an independent sovereign state of Scotland, the Socialist Party is no way endorsing the current status quo of the union.

A plague on both Westminster and Holyrood. 

Blue-prints aren't drawn up in indelible ink

 It is not particularly scientific to lay down an exact blueprint of how future socialist society will be organised but we are not concerned to design a blueprint for socialism - to say that this or that is how the future must be. No individual, or any minority of socialists, can abrogate to itself the decisions about how to live. These must be determined democratically by the people who make the socialist revolution. We can also imagine that the detailed structures of socialism in the different parts of the world won’t have to be exactly the same and will become clearer the nearer we approach it. Drawing up a detailed blueprint for socialism is also premature, since the exact forms will depend upon the technical conditions and preferences of those who set up and live in socialism. When a majority of people understand what socialism means, the suggestions for socialist administration will solidify into an appropriate plan. It will be based upon the conditions existing at that time, not today. 

Socialism is not a blueprint as to all aspects of the alternative society to capitalism, only a definition of what its basis has inevitably to be. What we can do, however, is to offer a glimpse into society as it could become once it is freed from the stranglehold of the money-men. We can describe certain basic principles and guidelines, and give an indication in very broad and tentative outline of the way we think society might be conducted. But the exact administrative structure and precise mode of behaviour of people in a socialist society will be determined by the specific material conditions of that society. What these specific material conditions will be, and how people will react to them, cannot be known to us at the present time.

Marx and Engels had relatively little to say about the future, partly because they held the drawing up of blueprints for an ideal society to be the very essence of utopianism, utopian as in idealistic, in the sense of an ideal society projected into the future and unconnected with existing social trends. Before the coming of industrial capitalism, the yearning for an egalitarian society could only be a yearning, without any concrete analysis of social reality. By refusing to write recipes for future cook-shops, by failing to talk about the future society except in very general terms for fear of being dubbed “idealist”, they in fact signalled that the building of socialism, as distinct from the opposition to capitalism, was not high on their agenda. Yet for socialists the building of the new society, by spelling out what common ownership, democratic control, production solely for use, and free access mean as a practical alternative that people can support now, must now be part of our agenda.

It is not easy to convince someone of the necessity and feasibility of a fundamentally new society by simply elaborating the description of the future. No matter how appealing that future society might appear, compared to present-day reality, it will probably still seem to be a figment of the imagination. 

Nevertheless, what Marx and Engels did say was usually positive and in line with their generally optimistic view of human nature and the capacity of workers to build a better, more equal and more truly human society than that of capitalism. In particular, Marx wrote of the variety of useful and pleasurable work that would be available to people, in this well-known passage:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic"

On another page he summed up the same thought as follows:
"In a communist society there are no painters but only people who engage in painting among other activities" 

(Nor should we forget his son-in-law Paul Lafargue penned a pamphlet with the title "The Right to be Lazy")

Communism, as envisioned by Marx, was to be "a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle", a society "in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

What Marx and Engels envisaged for the future society, from its very beginning, was a kind of participatory democracy organised without any political leaders or administrators at all, which requires some effort of imagination and historical understanding for the present-day readers to grasp

"Communism puts an end to the division of life into public and private spheres, and to the difference between civil society and the state; it does away with the need for political institutions, political authority, and governments, private property and its source in the division of labour. It destroys the class system and exploitation; it heals the split in man's nature and the crippled, one-sided development of the individual...social harmony is to be sought not by a legislative reform that will reconcile the egoism of each individual with the collective interest, but by removing the causes of antagonism. The individual will absorb society into himself thanks to de-alienation, he will recognise humanity as his own internalised nature. Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion or the legal regulation of interests, will ensure the smooth harmony of human relations… the powers of the individual cam only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and effective within a human community and not in isolation. Communism alone makes possible the proper use of human abilities" so wrote Lezlek Kolakowski, a Marxist commentator, ‘Main Currents of Marxism’,

But some statements by Marx and Engels about the socialist/communist future seem to show that they were not entirely immune from a conception of that future still rooted in the capitalist past. A particular worry about scarcity of goods in the early stages led Marx to consider labour time vouchers or certificates:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; and which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made, exactly what he contributes to it. What he has contributed to it is his individual quantum of labour"

Two points here. One is that modern production is social, not individual. It is doubtful whether the value of the "individual quantum of labour" could have been measured in Marx's time except in the crudest terms of time. It is even more doubtful whether such a measure could be made today. The second point is where Marx made it quite clear that, if labour time vouchers were used in socialism, this would be a temporary measure resulting from the comparatively low level of technology. Today potential abundance resulting from improved technology has made the idea of labour time vouchers quite outdated. It will no doubt become even more outdated in future. In a particular situation of actual physical shortage perhaps resulting from crop failure we can assume that the shortage can be tackled by some system of direct rationing such as prioritising individuals needs by vulnerability (according to needs), and if there is no call for that criteria, by lottery, or simply by first come - first served.

The socialist goal will be achieved by force of argument, by democratic methods, not by force of arms or authoritarian methods.

"Communism rises above the enmity of classes, for it is a movement that embraces all humanity and not merely the working classes. Of course no communist proposes to avenge himself against any particular individuals who are members of the bourgeoisie…Should the proletariat become more Socialist in character its opposition to the middle classes will be less unbridled and less savage… It may be expected that by the time the rising comes the English working classes will understand basic social problems sufficiently clearly for the more brutal elements of the revolution to be eventually overcome—with the help of the appearance of the Communist Party" (Engels).

This shows a progression of Marxist thought from a capitalist present that is in many ways divisive and brutal, to a communist/socialist movement that is in a transitional stage from divisiveness/brutality, to a future society that will embrace all of humanity. Engels quite reasonably expected workers to become less brutal as they adopted socialist ideas. The working class puts and end to human exploitation not as a conscious goal on behalf of all humanity, but as the inevitable by-product of ending its own exploitation. It accomplishes the general interest of humanity by acting in its own self-interest.

 This “movement” of the working class could be said to be implicitly socialist since the struggle was ultimately over who should control the means of production: the minority capitalist class or the working class (i.e. society as a whole).

 At first the movement of the working class would be, Marx believed, unconscious and unorganised but in time, as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, it would become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves. The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers could thus be said to be “spontaneous” in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about. Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism.

 As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

This, in fact, was Marx’s conception of “the workers’ party”. He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite of professional revolutionaries but as the mass democratic movement of the working class with a view to establishing socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Marx and Engels' own vision of communist revolution pre-supposed the masses' prior self-education. Perhaps the key distinguishing feature of Marx and Engels' thinking was precisely their conviction that the masses could and would educate themselves, organise themselves, liberate themselves, and rule themselves. The nature of a revolutionary movement was seen by Marx and Engels as crucial for the kind of post-revolutionary society that could be expected to emerge. A mass movement of workers meant that a democratic regime was feasible after the overthrow of bourgeois rule. A small conspiracy of professional revolutionaries implied a dictatorial post-revolutionary regime.

Democratic control is not an optional extra of socialism. It is its very essence. Democracy does not mean that all decisions have to made at general assemblies of all concerned or by referendum; it is compatible with certain decisions being delegated to committees and councils as long as the members of these bodies are responsible to those who (s)elected them. Certainly, workers' councils or something akin to them, as workplace organisations of the workers, are bound to arise in the course of the socialist revolution. But to claim that they are the only possible form of working class self-organisation is to go too far, is in fact to make a fetish of a mere organisational form. What is important in working class self-organisation, however, is not the form but the principle. As stated, what is important is not the form of organisation but the democratic - and socialist - consciousness of the working class. This can express itself in a great variety of organisational forms.

Independence for the Dung-Heap

 Sturgeon and the Scottish Nationalists recently made a call for an early second referendum on the question of sovereignty for Scotland. An independent Scotland is of little interest to the people of Scotland.

The Socialist Party calls itself world socialist. It supports the worldwide unity of working men and women.

 The word patriotism is almost always used in a lying fashion. As for the Socialist Party, the revolutionary socialists, we repudiate the national anthem and flag. We see only two countries in the world: that of the privileged and that of the dispossessed.

All countries, no matter what political label is attached to them – are composed of two groups, one a small minority, but the other embracing the immense majority of the people. 

The first group lack nothing. They are the big shareholders of the factories, the transport and communication industries, the retail store chains, the owners of great estates. Alongside them are the high officials of the state, ministers of government and senior civil servants, officers of the judiciary and the military.

And then we have the rest of us. The working men and women; petty officials, office and shop workers, who toil and sweat to enrich the wealthy.

Under the capitalist system, the owning and employing class remains sovereign and through their political power they subdue the working class. Nationalism in every nation masks the class antagonisms to the great profit of the ruling classes. Through it, they facilitate their domination and control. It serves as a bulwark of the privileged classes. The avowed aim of the armed forces, is to defend the country against a foreign threat; but once in uniform, when the barrack basic training has neutralised individual intelligence and initiative, removed the consciousness of one’s own interests, the soldier enforces the law in the service of the exploiters against fellow-workers.

 Our compatriots are not the capitalists. Our compatriots are the socialist revolutionaries of the whole world who wage the class war and engage in the same battles as ourselves for the establishment of a better society. We shall bring about the Revolution, in order to lay hold of the social wealth usurped today by the minority. We shall transform private property into communal property. We shall work towards a society where the factories, mines, all the great enterprises will be administered like co-operatives, a more rational and more equitable organization of production, in which there will be well-being for all. Socialism will be a society  far better than that of today. Our brothers and sisters is humanity.

The workers have no country. The differences which exist between the present countries are all superficial differences. The capitalist regime is the same in all countries; and as it cannot work without a minimum of political liberties, all countries which live under a capitalist system enjoy elementary liberties which cannot anywhere be denied any longer to the working people. Even in Iran and China, the autocratic regimes are being challenged.

No one any longer has a fatherland or motherland in the heterogeneous modern nations of today. The love for the land of one’s birth is foolish and absurd. We do not say that affection for the locality where a person was raised is not a natural sentiment very firmly implanted. Neither do we maintain that there are not fairly noticeable differences in culture, character and temperament of natives of various lands. The thing we oppose is the prejudice against the foreigner, discrimination against the outsider and newcomer. The Socialist Party aligns itself with the poor against rich, the exploited class against the ruling class, without taking into account the differences of nationality and language, or the frontiers created by accidents of history. The Socialist Party only fights to bring about a social organisation superior to all others, not only in its political form, but in the mode of production and distribution of wealth.  We will not fight to defend existing countries or to create new nation-states.

In Scotland we may admire the sight of the hills and glens, the lochs and burns, but hopefully it teaches us to appreciate the scenic beauty of other regions of our planet.  There are no country so superior to any other, that its peoples should sacrifice themselves for it.

If our anti-nationalist declarations causing us to lose support and votes, so be it. It grieves us little if we hurt the  feelings of people to whom patriotic loyalty is a religion. Our fellow-workers who give their lives for the present countries are dupes. The only war which is not a deception is the class war, the expropriation of the capitalist class to return to the producers the social wealth accumulated by human genius of generations past. The class war is worthy of all. 

John Keracher - Fellow Traveller?

 

There are not many Scots who are aware of the Marxist John Keracher from Dundee.

 Keracher was not only an organiser and propagandist for socialism, he was a pamphleteer.  Keracher was the author of a number of easy-to-read basic pamphlets. They served the important function of introducing the reader to socialist thought and encouraging further study in the classics. His clarion call to the working class was to get rid of the bedlam of out-worn capitalism and to replace it with the sanity of socialism. His pamphlets attempt to disseminate socialist knowledge and understanding — essential ingredients of the socialist revolution. His "How the Gods were Made" has been re-published by the Socialist Party. As a human being, Keracher was full of lively wit and good nature; his calm manner went unruffled by obstreperous opponents, critics, and hecklers. To those seeking personal advice or enlightenment on socialism, he was like an oasis in the desert, a quenching the thirst for knowledge. He was uncompromising in his principles but refrained from ad hominem attacks, and confined himself to the issues as he saw them. He relied on the logic of his arguments to counter critics. Throughout his life Keracher always retained the same admirable qualities with ally and adversary alike. In addition, he was an outstanding organizer, lecturer, and writer; and one always willing to do his share of the menial tasks. His friendships transcended politics and parties. 

Keracher was born on January 16, 1880, in Dundee and died of a heart ailment in Los Angeles on January 11, 1958. He was 77 years old.

In his early twenties, Keracher left Scotland for England, where he lived for a number of years and where he was exposed to the ideas of the Social Democratic Federation and likely coming under the influence of the “impossibilists”. He emigrated to the United States in 1909, settling in Detroit and followed in a family tradition by becoming a shoe-store owner. The back room of the Keracher's store after hours would soon provide a convenient rent-free location for study classes of Marx's Capital. Keracher became a member the Socialist Party of America.

 Detroit was a boom town from the years 1910 to 1918 and because of the growing automobile and other industries, it attracted hosts of workers seeking “good-paying” jobs.  An added stimulus was the advent of World War I, with its government contracts for military supplies. Among the influx of workers to Detroit were Canadian socialists from across the border, who had been active in carrying on socialist work. They were soon followed by Canadian and British "impossiblist" socialists avoiding conscription.  At this time  the Detroit local of the Socialist Party of America was involved in a bitter internal controversy between the large majority of “socialist” reformers  and the small minority of socialist revolutionists opposing the principles and policies of the Michigan Socialist Party. Most conspicuous in this dispute was Keracher on the side of the no-compromisers. Keracher and his colleagues managed to win adoption by Michigan organization of a “short program” devoid of such minimum demands at its 1914 state convention. The new radical program of the Michigan party proved no impediment to further growth, as the group's membership rolls continued to swell. Keracher was able to record another great factional triumph in the Socialist Party of Michigan when he was elected State Secretary in 1915. The state's 1914 “no reforms” platform was adopted one again at the 1916 state convention with minor modifications. Keracher's influence upon the party seemed sure.

 The revolutionary faction also drew encouragement from Kerr’s "International Socialist Review" as well as its Marxian classics and other pamphlets. They served a useful purpose in stimulating the reading of meaningful socialist literature. (Subsequently, when the Proletarian Party purchased the Kerr Company for the purpose of perpetuating the supply of socialist literature, Keracher made an excellent administrator and a valuable contributor). The combination of these circumstances led to the establishment of a Marxian study class in Duffield Hall.  Moses Baritz and Adolph Kohn of the Socialist Party of Great Britain were the instructors, with Keracher playing a leading role in this class by enlarging it to include debates and lectures. The class proved invaluable in spreading an understanding of Marxism and the principles of the SPGB. In July 1916, 43 members of the study class, including 19 members of Local Detroit, SPA, decided it was time to organize a genuine socialist party in the United States along the lines of the SPGB. The Workers’ Socialist Party of the United States resulted. The 50th anniversary of the American Party issue of the Western Socialist  explains how  leaders of the Michigan SPA such as John Keracher and Dennis Blatt were sympathetic to the 'revolutionary tea drinkers' as the Detroit comrades were called, but they thought that Marxists should remain in the SPA and trying to shift it toward socialism rather than organize separately. The formation of a new socialist party was premature, they claimed. Keracher apparently felt he could use his influence to move the SPA closer to the SPGB position by remaining within it as an active member. Keracher defended the members of the new party who were being heatedly criticized for resigning by members of the Detroit Local, SPA.

By this time, Keracher had become state secretary of the Socialist Party of Michigan. He was deeply involved in advocating that the next state convention of that party supplant reforms to patch up capitalism with a plank for revolutionary socialism. He also urged that the Party’s position on religion be changed from being considered as a private matter to one of social concern. He and his supporters were successful in changing the constitution of the Socialist Party of Michigan to conform with basic socialist objectives. At the time, this was a bombshell! Under these circumstances, it was understandable that he was unable to participate in the organization of The Workers Socialist Party. Whilst  recognizing the need for a new genuine socialist party, he was unable to join it. Instead, conditions being what they were, he, together with the socialists remaining in the SPA in Michigan, organized an educational group within the Party to disseminate socialist ideas.

Thus was born the Proletarian University, soon followed by its publication The Proletarian, which was in harmony with SPGB principles. The Proletarian University united and formed study circles in a number of towns around Michigan and in other cities throughout the country, including Buffalo, Rochester, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The establishment and propagation of Marxist study circles of was the hallmark of John Keracher. The task of the revolutionary movement in the current period was deemed to be the training of the working class in the “science” of Marxism in preparation for the inevitable revolutionary overturn of capitalism and the establishment of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

 “Every Local should maintain at least one weekly study class,” The "Proletarian" said, encouraging its establishment around the selection, reading, and discussion of an elementary book, such as The Communist Manifesto.  Meetings were to be led by a “class director” selected based upon experience "The director calls on one of the students to stand and start reading. After a few paragraphs are read, the director, who by the way, should be a good reader, reads the passage over again carefully and calls on the student to explain what has been read, after which he asks for additional explanation from the class. If the students are a bit slow he should try to get it over to them by questioning before proceeding to cover the points missed.... If the student knows that he will be required not only himself to understand, but to analyze and explain what he has read he will be much more attentive and think harder and that is the prime object of working class education — to add thinking capacity to direct and objectify the workers' resentment toward capitalist society." Keracher continued to hammer home his belief that worker education stood as the fundamental task of the socialist movement: "In the past we have not lacked theoretical basis for our movement, but in the consistent application of theory to practice we have been weak. So weak that the majority of the membership is badly confused as to the purpose of the movement — not to speak of the great army of workers outside. There is only one hope for the situation. THE WORKERS MUST BE TAUGHT. By its ability to master this Socialist knowledge the working class proves its fitness to assume control of society. In the struggle for emancipation, Socialist theory is the guide to correct action. Without it the movement flounders about aimlessly, dissipating funds and energy in fruitless effort."

The "Proletarian's"  first issue hit the street dated May 1918. The debut issue of the new paper laid out the fundamental principles of Keracher's faction in a lead editorial: "We will leave reforms of all kinds to those who think the present social system worth reforming. For our part, the revolutionary watchword, “the abolition of the system,” will be the keynote.  The workers must gain political power in order to get possession of the government. It will then be possible for them to use the institution of the State for its final function — the abolition of all classes by the socialization of the means of wealth production, to the end that the toilers, both intellectual and manual, will reap the full reward of their social labors." In the columns of "The Proletarian" could be found articles by Kohn (signed John O’London) and one by this writer titled “Letter to a Wage Slave.” In addition "The Proletarian" published an official statement by the National Secretary of the Workers’ Socialist Party, Lawrence Beardsley, with its endorsement. At that time, the Workers’ Socialist Party was not in a position to have its own journal.

There were two Kerachers — the pre-Russian Revolution one and the post-Russian Revolution one. Beyond question, the pre-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Marxist. This cannot be said unqualifiedly of his post-Russian Revolution position. The post-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Leninist-Marxist, caught in the dilemma of two “socialisms” — Marxian socialism as a system of society, and Leninist “socialism” as a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat. Yet, when the chips were down, Keracher’s Marxist background interfered with any blind conformity to Soviet dogma. Unlike most of those who were joining the Communist Party at this time, Keracher did not believe in an imminent Communist Revolution in the United States. He also opposed the formation of radical "dual" labor unions and later emerged as an opponent of the Communist Party’s exclusive reliance upon “underground” activity.  Keracher and his group in Michigan (including those associated with the group who lived outside that state) were expelled from the Communist Party charged with “Menshevism,” although Keracher himself continued to strongly support the Bolsheviks in Russia. Keracher and the Proletarian Party never got over its infatuation with the Russian social system and Keracher was still publishing a pamphlet as late as 1946 denying that Russia was an exploitative, class society. Adolph Kohn quipped: “The trouble Keracher is that he tries so hard to be Marxist and Bolshevik at one and the same time.”

 Distinct from the earlier Kerensky Revolution, the Bolsheviks and Lenin spoke the language of Marxism. It issued proclamations, the most stirring being the appeal to socialists in Germany and elsewhere: “We have seized power in our country, take power in yours and come to our aid.” It aroused emotional fervor and inspired the hope for international solidarity for the socialist revolution! Had a genuine socialist movement been predominant in Europe, there might have been a different story to tell. In the absence of a socialist majority, a socialist revolution was impossible, both in Russia and the rest of the world. Certainly the material conditions in Russia were not ripe for socialism in 1917. John Keracher, still the State Secretary of the SPA, also watched what was happening in Russia. As a Marxist, he was aware that circumstances in Russia were not really ripe for Socialism. But what if it could muster support from workers all over the world? Wasn’t there a role that the SPA could play to help? The Proletarian University became enthused with the Leninist doctrine of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and joined in the efforts to organize a communist party in the United States in support of the Bolshevik regime.
Shortly after the Third International was organized, a referendum was initiated in the Socialist Party of America by the supporters of Soviet Russia calling for quitting the Second International and joining the Third International. This referendum was sponsored by three groups: the Left-Wing group, the Foreign Language Federation, and the Michigan group. The referendum was carried by a majority of ten to one. However, the Executive Committee of the SPA vetoed the referendum on the grounds that the result was “fraudulent.” After the veto of the referendum a call was issued for a national conference of t he three groups to formulate a national declaration of principles and to conquer the Socialist Party of America for "revolutionary socialism.” The charter of the SPA–Michigan was the first to be revoked on the grounds that it had amended its constitution to repudiate legislative reforms. The anti-reformist repudiation of "immediate demands." and anti-religious stand of the Michigan SPA inspired by the SPGB caused the charter of the SPA–Michigan to be revoked on the grounds that it had amended its constitution to repudiate legislative reforms and led to them being expelled by the SPA in early 1919. Keracher had indeed persuaded the Michigan SP to change the first clause in its Constitution so that the Party would no longer support reforms of capitalism; and he had also rewritten Clause II, regarding the role of religion in capitalist society,  amending their State constitution as follows: 'Any member, Local, or Branch of a Local, advocating such reforms or support organisations formed for the purpose of advocating such reforms, shall be expelled from the Socialist Party. The State Executive Committee is authorised to revoke the charter of any Local that does not conform to this amendment'. An attitude upon religion identical with that of the SPGB had also been adopted and enforced by the constitution of the following clause: "It shall be the duty of all agitators and organisers, upon all occasions, to avail themselves of the opportunity of explaining religion on the basis of the materialist conception of history as a social phenomenon."

Then in short order, both the Foreign Language Federation and the Left-Wing were expelled. In the ensuing meetings of the three groups, differences between them made it difficult to organize a communist party to represent America in the Third International. The delegates of the Michigan Socialists themselves were in a hopeless minority. Michigan's platform and policy drawn up specially for presentation as the basis of the  new party was superior to that of the Russians, which was adopted. If  the Michigan delegates had kept to their former and fairly clear position long since associated with the 'Proletarian' the chances for a new party here would be brighter. The Michigan group could not fit in with any other group but was tolerated on a technicality. To its credit, it had refused to accept any office or to affirm any responsibility for the programs that were adopted. It was finally settled by orders from the Third International in Moscow, to the exclusion of these factions as groups, who should constitute the Communist Party in the United States. In 1920, the central committee of the Communist Party ordered that the Proletarian University become a party institution under its supervision. The Michigan group refused to accept this decision and chose to leave the Communist Party for good. In June 1920, the Proletarian Party was organized by Keracher and his comrades. Draper describes it as a “small, self-satisfied sect.” Obviously he was no sympathizer. On March 29, 1923, the Executive Committee of the Communist International requested that the PPA liquidate itself and that its members join the WPA. The Proletarian Party answered aggressively in the negative, declaring that it could see no reason for renouncing "sound, constructive, and honorable revolutionary action" in order to be absorbed into the "fetid swamp of sentimentalism" known as the Workers Party. The group similarly declined to participate in the Trade Union Educational League, due to dissatisfaction with the tactics of TUEL which "makes cooperation practically impossible."

As the Proletarian Party grew, local branches emerged in at least 38 U.S. cities. Keracher moved from Detroit to Chicago in the early 1920s, the city where the Proletarian Party was thereafter based. "The Proletarian" was  an anti-Communist Party journal, but supported the Russian Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Proletarian Party was “more communist than the Communists,” believing that the soviet were the transitional form of the proletarian state! ("The Proletarian", Jan. 1926).  A soviet, though, is merely a council. Applicable to the historic circumstances of developing Russian capitalism though it may be, no evidence is forthcoming that, in highly developed countries like England, U.S. and Germany, such special machinery will be needed to accomplish the proletarian revolution. The Proletarian Party, too, called for "the unfaltering support of the class-conscious workers everywhere” to “the movement of Anti-Imperialism among the backward nations,” because they “fight … the Imperial Capitalist Class.” A travesty on Marxism. The class conscious workers, everywhere, have nothing in common with the nationalistic struggles of backward nations. What lies behind the developing national consciousness of China, India, Nicaragua, Arabia? — the economic interests of different sections of the bourgeoisie. Countries like China, India and the rest, blossomed into capitalist countries. No longer are they merely sources of raw materials and markets for the disposal of commodities. The newly rising bourgeoisie in such backward countries find the ideologic expression of their economic and political needs in movements of nationalism. They are anti-imperialist only whilst being choked by the capitalist imperialism of England, the U.S., and the rest of the great powers. They aim at monopolizing for themselves the natural resources and the opportunities for profit by exploiting the workers of their respective countries.

The Proletarian Party retained its pro-Bolshevik stance while at the same time, maintaining its general stand against reformism as this 1928 quote from Keracher indicates "The Socialist Party [of America] and the Workers Party [Communist Party] are both parties of social reformism. Their election platforms are made up of capitalistic reforms, calculated to catch the votes of the petty bourgeoisie and the capitalistic- minded workers. Although they both claim to have for their object the ultimate establishment of a new social order, their immediate aim is the reforming of the present social system. Their appeals are mainly made to the small property owners and to those workers who desire to improve their lot within the confines of the capitalist system...The Proletarian Party is not a reform party. Its avowed purpose is the abolition of the present social order, the ending of the exploitation of labor by an idle parasitic class. It makes its direct appeal for the support of the workers as propertyless wage-slaves, not as “tax-paying” citizens, nor as charity chasers, seeking  a handout, or dole, from the capitalist state..."
Nor was Keracher a proponent of industrial unionism and explained that "The framework of the new social order requires no building within the old. It is already built — in the form of highly organized, socialized production, which by the way is in no way connected with industrial unionism. The task that presents itself is to abolish the present class ownership. Let us not fritter away our time dreaming about how affairs will be administered in the future social order. Let us rather take up the work of clarifying out movement; let us cast out the dross of legislative reform, and carry to the working class an uncompromising message, rallying them for the first step — the conquest of political power."
The Proletarian Party formally disbanded in 1971.

Appendix

The American secret police apparatus maintained a substantial network of professional agents and undercover spies observing and reporting upon a range of left wing and labour organizations in the early 1920s. This is the report on Keracher.

Warren W. Grimes, Special Assistant to the Attorney General.
DoJ/FBI Investigative Files, July 20, 1921

In 1916 two of the active leaders of the Left Wing movement at Detroit were DENNIS E. BATT and JOHN KERACHER. They considered even the Left Wing too conservative and decided to establish a new organization — which first took the name “Proletarian Club,” later becoming the “Proletarian University,” and after developing taking the name “The Proletarian Party.”By 1920 the Cleveland organization was 250 members. Buffalo was and continues to be one of the most active centers.

John Keracher.
Alias John “Kerr.” Alien (British subject) with first papers here. Born Dundee, Scotland, January 16, 1881. Arrived at New York in 1908 or 1909. Unmarried. First papers about 1915. Fed from Scotland, using the name John Kerr, to avoid payment of debts. (Apelman 8/18/
20).
Operates the “Reliance Shoe House,” 612 Dix Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. Admits being an alien and an active member of the Communist Party. (Apelman 1/9/20).
Arrested on immigrant warrant January 2, 1920 and proceedings cancelled on June 7, 1920. Record of hearing before immigrant inspector on file. Close friend of Isaac Ferguson. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Ferguson ]
Delegate to first convention of the Communist Party of America (though he claims now he disapproved some of its actions and left the convention before its conclusion) and secretary of the Detroit local of the Party. (Kahn 10/31/19).
Secretary of the “Proletarian University” at Detroit and associate editor of The Proletarian — official organ of subject party. Keracher writes most of the articles in the organ.
When examined by the immigrant inspector, Keracher denied not only his membership in the Communist Party but also his belief in the objectionable features of the program. However, the evidence conclusively shows Keracher to have been a member of the national organization
committee, who, with Batt and others, including Alexander Stoklitsky, signed the call for the convention.
Keracher denies even his signature to this call, and the Department of Labor — contrary to the recommendation of its own inspector and in the face of a mass of conclusive evidence — believed Keracher.
Keracher has spoken in many cities on behalf of both the Communist Party (at first) and the Proletarian (later). He says his speeches are on “Socialism.”
His testimony shows him in a brazen disregard for the truth, to have entered the United States without proper inspection, and to have committed fraud upon the immigrant authorities at the time of entry."

Keracher was arrested during the so-called Palmer Raids conducted nationwide on the night of January 2/3, 1920. Although many in the Justice Department continued to believe Keracher was deportable as a resident alien holding political views which ultimately advocated "force and violence," deportation proceedings against Keracher were terminated by the Bureau of Immigration of the Department of Labor in June 1920.

Sources: 
Formation  of the Proletarian Party of America 
Role-modelling Socialist Behaviour, biography of Isaac Rab,  by Karla Doris Rab
The Head-Fixing Industry
Why Unemployment? 
Lenin article by Keracher
The Socialist Party's contemporary critique  of Keracher's anti-parliamentarianism:
Parliament or Soviet reply