In my 27 years in the Cooperative (i.e. democratic socialist) movement, I've been a member of four political groups included in, or similar to, those listed and described below, and interacted with at least several others. Thus, I've learned much about the character of such groups and how they actually operate, and unfortunately in many cases the reality of these groups is unattractive. They are generally tiny, often ego-driven, often ignore their own rules, sloppy in protocol and procedure whether interacting with persons in or out of the group, and given to expulsion of members for arguably insubstantial reasons.

There is little question but that many in this movement have the right idea in its general contours. They recognize what PCS recognizes, and in fact what many ordinary persons likely realize, in some measure or on some level, that our present economic system and its attendant culture is severely injurious to us for several key reasons and many subsidiary ones as described in detail at this website, and must be replaced as soon as possible with the clearly superior economic, social, and personal model called a "Cooperative" system.

However, it is unfortunately true that this movement also comprises, in significant measure, a confounding and unyielding morass of defects, gaps, and inadequacies, including egotism; disorganized or nonorganizational procedural operation; ready indulgence in antagonism toward others in the movement or even one's own organization for often trivial reasons; doctrinaire adherence to beliefs; hostility, whether kneejerk or principled, toward other Cooperative variants; lax, sloppy, or complete inattention to procedural and other detail, and, perhaps worst of all, a pathological cannibalism whereby organizations readily expel members that have, or have been perceived to have, committed transgressions, or, who don't agree with every molecule of belief common to those of the bulk of, or even the favored segment of, the current organizational membership.

Such actions by an organization alienates members and sympathizers alike, through these formal actions as just described of superfluous, unprincipled, and arbitrary expulsions, as well as more informal assaults and excommunications such as ignoring email overtures and other attempts at communication and even conflict resolution, even when proffered by sincere and well-intentioned individuals.

The waters of this movement are frequently dark, tumultuous, and difficult to navigate.

Until I personally experienced it, what I had always found incomprehensible and actually somewhat unbelievable was how some of these groups would so readily and effortlessly expel some of their most intelligent, dynamic, active, and committed members. However, it happens all the time. One would think that in such a tiny movement every member, especially high-quality members, would be considered extremely valuable and thus consideration of their termination would be a matter of grave and resolute concern, and corresponding efforts would be strenuous to ensure that disciplinary or other action taken would be deliberate, measured, official, proper, and insofar as possible, charitable. In so thinking, however, one would be largely wrong. This exasperating reality is what fuels, in large measure, the explicitly love-centered organizational stance of PCS.

In years past I have refrained from publication of specific appraisals of these various groups, but after one-too-many episodes of shabby or arbitrary treatment I've decided to set diplomacy aside in consideration of the newcomer, who will likely benefit by beginning to understand the organizational landscape of this movement. More specifically, such appraisals when negative also provide a counterpoint to the love-centered PCS approach to organizational intercourse (whether with members, prospective members, sympathizers, or the public), and can thus facilitate a full and proper understanding of the dramatic benefit of membership in, or affiliation with, PCS.

In truth, as of my most recent difficulty with one of these so-called "old-guard" groups, the WSP, occurring in January 2010, I can no longer in good faith recommend membership in these old-line groups. Aside from their generally doctrinaire political posture, I have personally found that their principals, those in charge, are too-often simply not nice people.

Newcomers must understand that membership in a small political party is much like a marriage. And just as infidelity, physical abuse, or any other serious maltreatment by your spouse leading to a break-up can leave you with unpleasant and painful emotion, so can, and will, the cavalier misdeeds that these parties routinely visit upon their members and others.

Nor are these remarks informed only by my own experience. I've been in this movement for 27 years (as of 2011) and read and heard a number of accounts that all reflect the same dynamic. In the case of the SLP, for example, I've heard of members of 40 years standing tossed out of the organization essentially like last night's trash. Not all transgressions are this Draconian or dramatic, but they all hurt.

After reading this under-construction page, please visit my related page entitled PCS vs. other Orgs.

I am a former member of this organization.

The principals in this organization, especially Ron Elbert, Karla Rab, and the 2010 National Administrative Committee, behaved shamefully in regard to my petition for membership, causing me tremendous emotional stress, still unresolved as of January 21, 2010, and likely never to find full or proper resolution. Though the party asserts its "leaderless" character, Elbert and his partner Karla Rab are known as de facto leaders in the party, and my experience confirms this. The problems caused by their behavior also placed a blot on the presumed good name of their organization. I write "presumed" because my experience engenders a natural curiosity regarding whether it is representative of business as usual for this organization, and more generally, because I have not personally researched the behavior of this group over its lifetime with specific regard to its internal operation, including and especially the way it treats people, members and non-members, alike.

Accordingly, at present I cannot in good conscience recommend membership in the World Socialist Party.

In summary:  after a nine-month gestation period during which my application materials were prepared, submitted, and considered by the party, I was notified by Ron Elbert of my acceptance as a member. However, his notification indicated that, in fact, the other three representatives of the WSP National Administrative Committee had not formally and properly cast their vote. Elbert was presuming their vote to admit me (indeed, he told me on a previous occasion that the party did not operate organizationally, which means in proper accord with official rules and guidelines). Upon my notification to Ron that this casual and imprecise process of admittance was unacceptable to me, he solicited the other three members for their vote and notified me a day or so later, properly this time, that I had indeed been accepted.

Once admitted, I began operating in accord with my status as a full and official member of the organization. For example, I notified the Committee that a party member, in fact someone on the Committee, Brian Ellis, had been presenting and promulgating an improper representation of the doctrines that the party represented, and to which it was historically committed. I recommended a review of Brian's membership. This was an action on my part that was absolutely proper; indeed, necessary, and showed genuine fealty to the organization and its mission.

Approximately four days after admittance, I received an email communication from the party calling my membership into question. I replied by brazenly suggesting to the party that if it had ill-considered my candidacy it should revoke my membership. The party then responded by doing exactly this, accompanied by the claim that, in fact, I was never a member in the first place. This, however, is a claim that multiple email communications from the party easily refutes.

Though I would later learn that principals in the party took offense at my notification of improper behavior by Brian, said notification violated no party rule, and thus constituted no ground for termination of my membership, especially without any judicial process. An apparent additional thorn in the side of one or more party principals was my vote for the conservative Republican candidate in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. However, neither could this action constitute a valid revocation of my membership, as party rules do not dictate voting patterns of members (or at least not selectively so, as explained, below). Moreover, it is widely known and understood in the movement for democratic socialism that socialists sometimes vote for pro-capitalist candidates for one reason or another.

The disapproval and raised eyebrows I received for my vote for a Republican candidate gave me the impression that a vote for the Democratic candidate would have been acceptable. However, if true, this would constitute a clearly improper perspective and corresponding sequence of actions on the part of the party:  was it now supporting reforms? Or the Democratic party, itself?

Thus, just as Ron Elbert unilaterally and unofficially, and thus improperly, notified me that I had been admitted into membership, he also apparently unilaterally and unofficially engineered my termination from the party. All this from an organization that trumpets its "leaderless" orientation. Brian Ellis wrote me on January 16, 2010:

The Committee had to assert as its cover story that I had never been a member, since their action was so blatantly improper and unacceptable if directed toward a member. My case never received any sort of official hearing or review by the party, as its own guidelines require. Moreover, incredibly, I was never provided an official notice of termination, nor even an explanation regarding my dismissal. Nor did I ever receive an apology of any kind. In fact, though Ron Elbert was my principal contact during my entire lengthy application period and we communicated many times, he never personally notified me of my termination, or even that he and others were having second thoughts; no attempt was made to work collaboratively with me to resolve any complaints or second thoughts that may have arisen in regard to my membership.

In fact, disgracefully, the moment he summarily decided that I was unfit for membership, Ron Elbert literally never wrote or spoke another word to me, again. At the time, I reached out to him repeatedly via email and made several attempts at telephonic communication, as well. He ignored every single email I sent, and almost every telephone call I made. Karla answered my telephone calls once or twice, but hung up on me after several minutes of "conversation," that consisted mainly of her airing her complaints against me, which I tolerated, while providing me a negligible opportunity to respond.

These are immature, cowardly, ego-driven yet ultimately ego-deficient persons, to whom I would not entrust the fate of the human race in a thousand years. Their behavior, ironically, was the most anti-socialist one could imagine, although, unfortunately, altogether representative of the patterns common to the socialist movement. Neophytes are almost always unaware of these traps and quicksand.

The following two email messages, sent to Ron Elbert on January 18, 2010, better and more comprehensively summarize the entire situation. Click each link to download.

Account Pending.

I am a former member of this organization.

Account Pending.

Phase I

Phase II

I am a former member of this organization.

Account Pending.

I am a former member of this organization.

Account Pending.

Account Pending.

Account Pending.

Note for now, however, that I was never a member of this group, nor did I ever apply for, or wish, membership. I have had experiences with CP members, however, and this is what I will describe, here.

Account Pending.

Account Pending.