Cpusa, Is it worth trying to radicalize?

[ComradeR]

I've started looking for an organization to join but there is nothing in my local area except the Cpusa, which has become little more then a social democratic party. However I was wondering if there was any potential in trying to turn it back to the radical left. Is there any chance for it or is it simply a lost cause and not worth my time?

[Revy]

Go for it, just don't be surprised if it turns out to be very difficult. There might be some real communists on the local level.

[heiss93]

The rank and file members are far more radical than the leadership. Also there are many open Trotskyists and Maoists among the rank and file, so there is no real effort to weed out radicals. But if you want to take the party in a new direction, there will certainly be a showdown.

The CPUSA has a great history and organization and is still the largest Marxist party by far in numbers. So its worth a shot.

I personally don't consider them revisionist yet, but I will admit the tendency is there and the danger exists.

[KC]

The CPUSA has a great history and organization and is still the largest Marxist party by far in numbers.

Prove it.

[Marx22]

You could try to move it away from its democratic socialist stance/social democrat policies. I'd at least attempt it.

How many members does the CPUSA have anyway? Are they active at all? I looked on their website and they still have things from 2002-2005.

[Kassad]

They supported a candidate who still continues occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan; who supports Zionist oppression of the Palestinian people; who refuses to prosecute the Bush Administration war criminals for human rights violations; who refuses to make the corporate elitists pay for their own destructive speculation; who refuses to come anywhere near being a revolutionary socialist. They supported a wealthy, privileged politician from a corporate party and they want to call themselves communists? You'd be better off trying to radicalize the Democratic Party.

When observing communist parties in the United States, once you filter out the revisionist parties, the social-democratic parties and the reformist parties, you are only left with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I recommend checking them out. I live far from a branch, but I still receive materials to organize. Frankly, I don't give two shits if Communist Party USA has 100,000 members. They have absolutely no activist presence, no presence in class struggle and they are a party that sympathizes and settles for petty center-right reforms. We can do better than that.

[KC]

When observing communist parties in the United States, once you filter out the revisionist parties, the social-democratic parties and the reformist parties, you are only left with the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Yeah, only the PSL are the real revolutionary vanguard. Everyone else is completely irrelevant.

Because that way of thinking has gotten us so much in the past 80 years...:rolleyes:


Frankly, I don't give two shits if Communist Party USA has 100,000 members. They have absolutely no activist presence, no presence in class struggle and they are a party that sympathizes and settles for petty center-right reforms. We can do better than that.

The CPUSA has a significant activist presence in terms of the anti-war movement and some other single-issue movements, so it's a flat-out lie to say that they have "absolutely no activist presence".

As for their opportunism, a party is not monolithic. There are certainly revolutionary elements within the CPUSA that should not be written off, and there are also a lot of rank and file members that are not very knowledgeable about Marxism or revolutionary politics (this is especially true for the CPUSA/YCLUSA because that is usually the first organization that one turns to when they are just starting out) that can be educated and brought to a higher level of understanding, and to write them off as you have here is frankly in my opinion absolutely ridiculous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

When observing communist parties in the United States, once you filter out the revisionist parties, the social-democratic parties and the reformist parties, you are only left with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I recommend checking them out.

How much of a program does the PSL actually have? :confused: [And the Workers Party in America isn't a "revisionist, social-democratic, or reformist party"]

[Kassad]

How much of a program does the PSL actually have? :confused: [And the Workers Party in America isn't a "revisionist, social-democratic, or reformist party"]

Ah, they slipped me. They're a nice organization, but I don't see them mustering much activist or political support in the near future. Anyway, what do you mean by a 'program?' The party has a Constitution (which is only available for candidate members and members) and an assortment of pamphlets, articles and publications that describe its political philosophy.


Yeah, only the PSL are the real revolutionary vanguard. Everyone else is completely irrelevant.

Because that way of thinking has gotten us so much in the past 80 years...:rolleyes:

If we're discussing the establishment of a revolutionary vanguard in the form of a political party, the only group actually promoting Marxist theory and properly establishing solid support is the Party for Socialism and Liberation. A lot of parties and organizations in the United States are what I would refer to as 'false vanguards,' in that the solutions and ideologies they promote are either reformist, revisionist or social-democratic, which misleads the working class and impedes class struggle.


The CPUSA has a significant activist presence in terms of the anti-war movement and some other single-issue movements, so it's a flat-out lie to say that they have "absolutely no activist presence".

As for their opportunism, a party is not monolithic. There are certainly revolutionary elements within the CPUSA that should not be written off, and there are also a lot of rank and file members that are not very knowledgeable about Marxism or revolutionary politics (this is especially true for the CPUSA/YCLUSA because that is usually the first organization that one turns to when they are just starting out) that can be educated and brought to a higher level of understanding, and to write them off as you have here is frankly in my opinion absolutely ridiculous.

Bullshit. I've been to most major anti-war and other issue protests in Washington D.C. and Chicago in the last few years and Communist Party USA has not been at a single one of them. I've been at United For Peace and Justice protests, ANSWER Coalition protests, World Can't Wait protests and other assorted demonstrations. I have never seen Communist Party USA show their revisionist faces to this day.

I write them off in the same way I write off the Democratic Party. I mean, do you even think rationally for five minutes? There's a lot of Marxists in the Democratic Party as well, some of which I know personally. Just because Marxists exist in the party does not mean that the party is following a proper ideological line that promotes class struggle and revolutionary socialism.

[KC]

If we're discussing the establishment of a revolutionary vanguard in the form of a political party

Except we're not. We're discussing a comparatively irrelevant sect. The PSL is not a "vanguard party" and will never be one; however, that goes for all currently existing organizations and is a truth based on the development of the class struggle and not about the PSL's politics particularly.


Bullshit. I've been to most major anti-war and other issue protests in Washington D.C. and Chicago in the last few years and Communist Party USA has not been at a single one of them. I've been at United For Peace and Justice protests, ANSWER Coalition protests, World Can't Wait protests and other assorted demonstrations. I have never seen Communist Party USA show their revisionist faces to this day.

The CPUSA works within UFPJ.


I write them off in the same way I write off the Democratic Party.

Really? That's really telling, and confirms what I said earlier.


I mean, do you even think rationally for five minutes?

Do you need to get personal when someone criticizes your organization?

[Kassad]

Except we're not. We're discussing a comparatively irrelevant sect. The PSL is not a "vanguard party" and will never be one; however, that goes for all currently existing organizations and is a truth based on the development of the class struggle and not about the PSL's politics particularly.

A 'vanguard party' is, as Lenin put it, a party of 'professional revolutionaries.' It is a party that organizes for working class struggles. I don't expect my party to lead the revolution and take power from the bourgeoisie, but by that definition, it is a vanguard party. It is a party of working class individuals struggling for socialism and emancipation. It organizes within the working class and educates workers who may not totally grasp Marxism or revolutionary socialism. It leads struggles against the bourgeoisie.


The CPUSA works within UFPJ.

They obviously don't set up tables, carry banners or distribute information at those protests. When I was in Washington a few years ago and United for Peace and Justice worked with the ANSWER Coalition, both organizations had a significant presence at their marches. I never saw Communist Party USA materials anywhere. Also, United For Peace and Justice is known for letting right-win reactionaries like Ron Paul talk at their rallies because of their anti-war tendencies. Communist Party USA is seeming more socialist by the second! You're honestly winning this argument for me.

[Lolshevik]

ComradeR:

I toyed with the idea of joining the CPUSA a bit too, since numerically they are (I think) the largest self-described Marxist party in the U.S.... but what do they do with those numbers? The PSL has a far higher activity level, is actually quite open about its revolutionary politics, etc, with a smaller numerical base; don't you think it would be better to join the party that is already immersed in the struggles of our class, instead of joining a party so that you can struggle to make IT struggle?

Bear in mind, the size & support of a political party can dramatically grow or shrink in a very short period of time, depending on the validity of its politics. The Bolshevik Party showed us that.

[manic expression]

Why does PSL take part in the electoral system (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7881)? Does that form part of organizing the working class? Do you believe electing a President can overthrow capitalism?

For the same reasons the Bolsheviks did: to use the platform and hightened political consciousness of the election cycle to propagate revolutionary ideas to American workers. The PSL does not seek to reform capitalism through capitalist elections at all, it seeks to reach the masses through the vehicle that electoral campaigns provide. That's my answer to that question.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, they slipped me. They're a nice organization, but I don't see them mustering much activist or political support in the near future. Anyway, what do you mean by a 'program?' The party has a Constitution (which is only available for candidate members and members) and an assortment of pamphlets, articles and publications that describe its political philosophy.

The question of so-called "activist or political support" is directly related to the presence or absence of a political program. For a concise example of a political program, here's one from the 19th-century that was *the* template for political programs of Marxist parties everywhere, including the RSDLP:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

The Workers Party in America has this political program, for example:

http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=36&Itemid=55

Like what Lenin said, without a revolutionary political program there can be no revolutionary political movement.

[manic expression]

Jacob Richter, I'm holding a good portion of the platform in my hand right now, entitled "Who We Are, What We Stand For", a bi-lingual pamphlet that's circulated by the party (see below). You can also read the positions of the party on the website. There is no lack of a platform here.

http://socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/newsFlash.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since I'm not in the USA, could you please disclose the platform so that it can be subjected to a review? :(

[manic expression]

Well it's only in print form as far as I know, unfortunately. However, if you read the PSL's statements on the website you'll definitely find their positions articulated clearly on a wide range of issues. You can also order the pamphlet if you'd like a copy. Short of me transcribing it, that's probably the best way.

[black magick hustla]

you cannot just build with a few folks a "vanguard party". The status of "vanguard" has everything to do with the state of class struggle (because vanguard parties emerge organically from massive struggles, "communist" parties today are not vanguard parties, they are at best currents or fractions). Although whether an org is communist or not depends entirely on their politics, their status as "vanguard" does not.

[ComradeR]

Thanks for the responses.

I toyed with the idea of joining the CPUSA a bit too, since numerically they are (I think) the largest self-described Marxist party in the U.S.... but what do they do with those numbers? The PSL has a far higher activity level, is actually quite open about its revolutionary politics, etc, with a smaller numerical base; don't you think it would be better to join the party that is already immersed in the struggles of our class, instead of joining a party so that you can struggle to make IT struggle?
Very true, PSL is a party I've seriously thought about joining. However there does not seem to be a branch of the PSL in my area and as things stand right now I do not have the funds, time or resources to start one.
I just thought that it might be worth a shot to try and at lest engage with the more radical elements in the cpusa (I've heard before that it has a more radical base) and attempt to move the party away from it's reformist liberalism. I'm just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with them and know what their base looks like if for nothing else then to draw those radical elements away from the cpusa's liberalism or if it's simply not worth the effort. However I'm not rushing into anything at the moment (my number one goal at the moment is to find work) so I'll see how things go.

[The Idler]

Consider all the options before joining. Have a look at the List of Left-Wing Parties in the US (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States).

[Kassad]

Thanks for the responses.

Very true, PSL is a party I've seriously thought about joining. However there does not seem to be a branch of the PSL in my area and as things stand right now I do not have the funds, time or resources to start one.
I just thought that it might be worth a shot to try and at lest engage with the more radical elements in the cpusa (I've heard before that it has a more radical base) and attempt to move the party away from it's reformist liberalism. I'm just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with them and know what their base looks like if for nothing else then to draw those radical elements away from the cpusa's liberalism or if it's simply not worth the effort. However I'm not rushing into anything at the moment (my number one goal at the moment is to find work) so I'll see how things go.

So organize in your area! Contact the main branches or the branch closest to you by phone or e-mail and see if they can send you some materials. Even the Bolsheviks had to start somewhere. Work to organize in your area. I don't live near a branch, but I still have a lot of activity growing in my state.

[heiss93]

There are some radical members in the YCL central committee, although they are certainly in the minority. If you read the debates at the Political Affairs blog, you'll see that there is a split even at high levels of the party.

I agree with much of the PSL's ideology, but they are extremely sectarian and refuse to work with mass organizations. So even if PSL is "right", it means little to preach to the choir.


PSL's very existance is based on narrow sectarianism, since they split from the Worker's World Party, without naming any significant differences. I'm not saying they need to publish a polemic calling WWP a CIA front. But they should at least explain themselves.

[Sam_b]

I assumed that it was common knowledge that PSL split from WWP over disagreements with activist work and broad coalitions. There is a reason that WWP rarely participate in ANSWER, for example.
You cannot class that split as petty sectarianism because its a disagreement over fundamental differences in building a movement. When staunch WWP members and supporters like Gloria LaRiva get involved and leave to join the PSL you can see it isn't a trivial matter.

[Lolshevik]

Thanks for the responses.

Very true, PSL is a party I've seriously thought about joining. However there does not seem to be a branch of the PSL in my area and as things stand right now I do not have the funds, time or resources to start one.
I just thought that it might be worth a shot to try and at lest engage with the more radical elements in the cpusa (I've heard before that it has a more radical base) and attempt to move the party away from it's reformist liberalism. I'm just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with them and know what their base looks like if for nothing else then to draw those radical elements away from the cpusa's liberalism or if it's simply not worth the effort. However I'm not rushing into anything at the moment (my number one goal at the moment is to find work) so I'll see how things go.

I don't live nearby a branch of any radical parties either, and I do admit that if I did live near a CPUSA branch, but nothing else, I would be tempted. But I really don't think they do enough, in terms of activism or education, for it to really matter even if you ARE near one of their locals. Even if they had you distributing their newspaper for instance - I've read several copies of the Peoples Weekly World and if I didn't already know better, I wouldn't be able to tell that it was a communist publication!

My advice is for you to take your time and find the group that is right for you. But I would suggest the PSL; you'll find them quite willing to work with you at whatever activity level you're able to sustain. (They have me distribute Liberation newspaper in my area for instance.)

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

No, it's best not to join the "Communist" Party USA. If they believed that

"Marxism bases itself, in part, on the proposition that there needs to be unity between theory and practice, and that practice (in other words, real life) is primary. The test of differences over Marxist theory doesn’t come from how many quotes any group can marshal, but from working with real people, in real struggles."

as their FAQs still on their website will tell you, they'd get the message all on their own. (Though one should note that these date back years ago, when they were still the Communist Party USA, minus the scare quotes.)

The honest-to-God truth is that the CPUSA is no longer a truly Marxist party. And this is only from the horse's mouth.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Political Affairs. This is supposed to be the monthly theoretical journal of the CPUSA. Its web address is politcalaffairs(dot)net and if you click the link, you'll see that there is a link to a PA Editors' Blog, paeditorsblog.blogspot.com.

Let's take a little trip back to the summer.

Here, Joe Sims, former chief editor - now the sole producer of the theoretical journal spells out for us, a la the David Letterman show, the "Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism" (http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot.com / 2008 / 08 / ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism . html):

"1. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat.' Probably the worst phrase uttered by a political theorist ever. Who wants to live in a dictatorship?"

Apparently Sims doesn't understand (!) - or has let go of - the meaning of the term. "Dictatorship of the proletariat," as so immensely profound a resource as Wikipedia can tell you, is not about dictatorship. This is a mid-1800s term from Karl Marx, referring to the total assumption of the means of control by the proletariat, in opposition to the present control of such capital by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It has nothing to do with one-man rule or any similar bull.

Granted, this is not quite a compelling turn of phrase. Perhaps it should be substituted for something more linguistically palatable - if so, more power to them. But Sims' quarrel here is not linguistic; Sims doesn't believe in such a thing as total worker control. Here the chief editor, producer and National Board member goes on:

"Even if I agreed with it conceptually, (which I don't), the Machiavellian in me has enough sense not to repeat it. Indefensible. And by the way, working-class 'hegemony' (whatever the hell that means, sorry Gramsicans), aint much better."

So they have abandoned (!) the Marxist conception of class struggle.

This, of course, is the wonderful CPUSA theorist red-handed, but Sims does not stop. Apparently his idea of explaining things in little two-to-three sentence sound-bites substitutes for coherent and in-depth analysis of political ideology. Expediency gives way to consideration for true Marxist theory.

Another analytical gem is number eight:

"8. 'Organic intellectual.' Sorry Gramsci people. Great idea, but too much granola."

As well as:

"10. 'Religion is the opium of the people.' Probably the second stupidest phrase ever uttered by a political theorist. Here again indefensible, even if it was taken out of context. Truly, God is not our enemy: capitalism is."

Ah, okay. Never mind the context of the remarks. Never mind the genuinely repressive 19th century subservient role of church to state as an institution sublimating the proletariat's desires, a century before liberation theology or anything like that.

Compiling best-and-worst lists of ideas developed and argued about for centuries by leading Marxist thinkers is something the gang of Political Affairs Chief Joe Sims dismisses in two-sentence outburst.

This, as you might imagine, provoked some interesting remarks to the Best-Worst thread, with the majority of the PA's readership - such editors as Joel Wendland and Dan Margolis - defending Sims at every turn.

Somebody whose name is Don wrote:

"Terrific article. Next you should go after Renegade Lenin and his disastrous revision of Marxism. When the USSR collapsed, it was not American cold war pressure that caused it, American triumphalism notwithstanding. No society collapses that suddenly and that massively unless it is structurally rotten from the foundations to the rafters. The collapse of the USSR was in fact collapse of the Leninist project."

Not content with this bull, Sims proceeds to make a series of his project.

In "The Best and Worst of Marxism #4" he rejects both the idea of socialism in one country (the staple of Marxist-Leninist thought since the '20s) and Trotsky's alternative (permanent revolution on a world scale). "Communism" as the CPUSA understands it has accordingly evolved into the pseudo-Communist course of purse social democracy. (What Sims doesn't reject, of course, is nearly unfledgling support for Democratic President Barack Obama.) [http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2008 / 08 / worst-and-best-of-marxism-4 . html]

Strangely endorsing the agenda of the right-wing Russian politicians since Yeltsin - who backed down from a plan of closing the Lenin Mausoleum and burying Lenin somewhere to be forgotten and remote only after the massive protest by the Russian workers - Sims suggests that we let Lenin rest in peace.

Among the "worst of Marxism" in "Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008" he actually lists

"5. Failure to bury Lenin’s mummified remains. Let the man rest in peace! Come on comrades this is the 21st century! (and what’s up with all those vampire movies)?"

[http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot.com / 2009 / 01 / ten-best-and-worst-of-marxism-for-2008 . html]

Not an illogical step for a CPUSA ideologue who has already buried Lenin. All but physically.

This kind of stuff might sound like sour grapes coming from some strange whacko of the CPUSA's new Popular Front days, but CPUSA National Board member Joe Sims enjoys robust support from all the other key editors at Political Affairs.

For instance, Political Affairs Editor Joel Wendland, also writing for the same blog, in the defensive post "Confessions of a Post-Cold War Communist" (http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2008 / 08 / confessions-of-post-cold-war-communist . html).

Joel Wendland, blogging for the PA, writes:

"I have followed Joe Sims' recent theoretical forays into some of 'Marxism's' worst and best moments with interest, some laughter, some chagrin, and some perplexity. Things that make you go, 'who the heck came up with that one.' While I do not agree 100% with him, I appreciate and applaud his efforts to elevate and broaden our thinking. I do have to say, however, that I do not view any of his statements as too controversial or outrageous.

"Specifically, concepts like 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' 'socialism in one country,' 'art as a weapon,' single-party states, vanguard party, and the naming of ideas and political movements after men have all seemed outrageous and more or less irrelevant to me – indeed a little anti-communist."

Who came up with that one? Marx and Lenin did. Are these people too stupid to study and understand Marxism, or are they playing opportunist from their renovated-at-$1,000,000.00-a-pop glass offices in New York City's downtown?

The number 7 worst of the original "Best and Worst of Marxism" reads:

"7. 'Marxism, Marxism-Leninism.' Very bad idea to name a scientific world-view after individuals. Way too subjective and besides too many bad stories and nightmares associated with it..."

[http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2008 / 08 / ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism . html]

Not bad for a party that regards itself as "Marxist-Leninist."

Some people have written here that the CPUSA is still the largest and most relevant party. This can't be real.

In a 2002 interview with Kerry Burke, Webb claimed that the CPUSA had 15,000 members (http: // web . archive.org / web / 20070109180617 / http : // www . jrn . columbia . edu / academics / studentwork / cns / 2002-03-04 / syndication / kburke--communist.txt).

In a 2004 address to his dwindling flock he claims that

"Had we 10,000 members rather than 2,500, it would make a world of difference in what we could do. Had we 20,000 we could move and shake many of the battleground states." (http : // www . cpusa . org / article / articleview / 587 /)

(In 2005, our "comrade" Danny Rubin writes "For example, our small growth means we have reached, according to Comrade Webb's excellent June 2004 NB report about 2500 members." [http : // www . cpusa . org / article / view / 633/])

What happened from 2002 to 2004? Webb simply lied about the membership. Or he's presided over the biggest exodus of Party faithful since the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period. :-)

The true numbers, of course, are likely to be still lower. For instance, Alan Maki claims that the number of CPUSA members nationwide is actually 314. There are good reasons for assuming so.

Physically printed copies of Political Affairs actually ceased to be distributed in summer of 2008. Sims raves that the party has moved to an "all-online format": fourth best for 2008 (http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2009 / 01 / ten-best-and-worst-of-marxism-for-2008 . html) is:

"4. Decision of Political Affairs, Marxist monthly of politics, ideology and culture to go over to complete on-line production."

By year's end - in No. 7 of "The Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008" (http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2009 / 01 / ten-best-and-worst-of-marxism-for-2008 . html) - Sims notes the "slight decline in the on-line circulation of PA, modestly offset by an increase in return unique visitors."

That's great, Joe. How wondeful to know that this is the sort of leadership that thrives under the "Communist" Party of Sam Webb, a career party organizer who's never worked a day in his life (a favorable article in People's Voice noted that he transitioned from St. Xavier college student to hippie commune experimenter to career party hack climbing up the bureucratic hierarchy since the 1970s). This is the sort of "Marxist intellecutal" -- or college-educated non-Marxist, non-intellectual -- who finds his way to highest office in the CPUSA.

One might get some sort of different impression from reading something like the Wikipedia article on the CPUSA. It states that after straying from the classic Marxist-Leninist line, a number of party hacks were expelled, going on to form the largely-stillborn and social democratic "Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism." This social democratic crowd - good old members like Erwin Marquit, now sitting National Board, who left in 1991, having explicitly jettisoned Leninism during the inter-party split - not only has been permitted to reenter the CPUSA in droves (while concurrently remaining members of the CoC), but now occupies the select ranks of the party's National Board - one noxious example being the "pro-market socialism" PA writer Erwin Marquit. (The Committees of Correspondence now even officially pays the bills for the Party's political literature: "Reproduction of this booklet has been paid for by the Committees of Correspondence Education Fund, Rm. 506, 11 John St., New York, NY, 10038." - http : // www . cpusa . org / article / articleview / 504 / 1 / 104/)

Lest someone should think that I am some kind of purist opposed to any contributions toward Marxism by newer thought, I must emphatically explain that this is, most certainly, is not the case. The purist here is Sam Webb -- and he is an "Obama purist." While preaching "unity against the ultra-Right," Sam Webb is quick to attack anyone who doesn't get aboard with the Party's all-Progressives-for-Obama-look-he's-great program (now codified into the Party Constitution as support for the Democratic Party). Political Affairs, which frequently reprints handpicked articles from other sources during the intermonthly period between their new online updates, recently reposted an article from Narco News Bulletin's Al Giordano, "You and What Movement?" -- an attack on Naomi Klein, who had dared to suggest that making concrete demands from Obama might be a worthier goal than waiting for the hope-and-change slogans to materialize. (Take a look at http : // www . narconews . com / Issue57 / article3498 . html)

Giordano writes that

"Among African-Americans (without which there can be no successful 'progressive movement' in the United States), a towering 94 percent approve of how the president is doing his job, according to the Quinnipiac survey. Among Hispanic Americans (just as important to any progressive future in the US), 73 percent feel the same way. Among Americans that earn less than $50,000 a year (the working class and the poor), a solid 60 percent approve. The question must be asked: What 'movement' does Klein thus imagine? An exclusively white and college educated one? I fear that the truth may not be far from it if she is so quick to insult and dismiss such a large bloc of people who skew non-white, poor and working class."

Naomi Klein, of course, hasn't "insulted" anyone. This is by far the milder of Mr. Giordano's CPUSA-approved rant, where he goes all the way to brand Ms. Klein a reactionary anti-Obama racist (read that little Narco piece for yourself) because her following is largely college-educated and white. A pretty decent point with regard to the need of disseminating the agenda among oppressed people of minority background, maybe, but to attack Naomi Klein, a key figure in fighting for justice for the Palestinians, as a racist because the student following that reads her work happens to be white and college-educated is a bankruptly idiotic statetement. That a party seeking to build "progressive unity" would not merely accept qualified ideological criticisim of, but endorse something as barely fathomable as an opportunistic and disgusting attack on a Democrat like Naomi Klein smacks of such crassness that it can only be described as pure idiocy. Evidently to suggest real, radical change for poor people of all backgrounds, to truly ask that something be done about the Palestinians or the working class African American and Latino person - especially if such sentiments come from a white person, though at the expense of the Obama administration, even if this person is a Democrat who worked on the Obama campaign - is too radical for Mr. Giordano and his groupies at the CPUSA. No, our Democratic President Barack Obama is too saintly to be attacked like that, even by a liberal Democrat asking for more to be done for the progressive bloc: Obama won 95% of the African American vote. (Has any Democrat since 1970 not won more than 90% of the African American vote?)

Barack Obama, comrades, is the almighty vanguard of the "Communist" Party.

If only the attacks from unity-preaching "Comrade" Webb were proxy attacks from Narco News against such figures as Naomi Klein, a diehard CPAUSA-er might disingenuously argue that there may still be an inch of ground on which to stand. Alas, Mr.-Comrade-Left-Wing-Unity-Sam-Webb does not hesitate to launch attacks against his fellow rank-and-file CPUSA members. To begin with, the decision to endorse Obama in 2008 was not democratically arrived at via the processes of democratic centralism encoded into the CPUSA constitution, but decided behind closed doors in the offices of the CPUSA tower, following which they were imposed on the rank-and-file members of the poor organization. Virtually the entire membership of the Minnesota-Dakotas District of the CPUSA, rebelling against the reformist leaders' decision to support the Barack Obama candidacy and failure to make a statement against the closure of the Ford Plant in Minnesota. (The CPUSA leadership dismissed District Secretary Alan L. Maki, who wrote about the incident here, some two years ago, because he went against the decision not to protest the Ford Plant's closure.)

Anybody who is interested in the statement from District Leaders Rita Polewski and Alan Maki can read about things here:

http : // theminnesotaproblem . blogspot . com / 2007 / 10 / minnesotadakotas-district-of-communist . html

I'm sorry about the length of this rant, but there are enough grievances to be pissed with the kind of bullshit we get from the Webb-Sims-Wendland-Marquit-and-Margolis crowd of social democrats. I do 100% ask the sort of people who take their brand of Marxist socialism from the broad range of perspectives here on RevLeft to consider not wasting their time. Nobody should be led to join a Marxist-Leninist Party which rejects Marxism-Leninism. (Though joining the CPUSA, would, in fact, be a courageous act for any anti-communist.)

Anybody who considers himself a Marxist, on the other hand -- and whether Marxist-Leninist or not -- should simply let the CPUSA choke on the saliva of its own "Sam Webbism."

If, as the CPUSA used to tell members, "practice (in other words, real life) is primary," that practice will soon give rise to the new stage of the class sturggle. That would be when Webb abandons Marxism-Leninism and dissolves his fanboys to join the left-wing Democratic Party USA.

[Revulero]

does PSL have a branch near texas?

[manic expression]

There isn't a branch in Texas at present, but the PSL does have a branch in Tulsa, and I'm pretty sure they'll have contacts near you in Texas. If you're interested, get in touch with them here:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=contactus#tulsa

In my experience, the PSL does make a real effort to work with supporters and others who might be at some distance. I'm more than 4 hours from NYC, but a few members drove here, talked to my group and I, worked out a plan and pointed us in the right direction. We've been working closely ever since.

[Revulero]

Thanks, though I kinda have issues with leninist on the way their parties are setup, but I really wanna be active so.

[Lolshevik]

Thanks, though I kinda have issues with leninist on the way their parties are setup, but I really wanna be active so.

What issues do you have with Leninist organization?

[Revulero]

I've always mixed feelings about having vanguard parties and the use of democratic centralism.

[Lolshevik]

I've always mixed feelings about having vanguard parties and the use of democratic centralism.

Democratic centralism is the best means of getting past what seems to be a very base tendency among the radical left; endless bickering that leads to inaction. Democratic centralism is diversity in discussion with unity in action. This proves beneficial for both the majority and minority positions in any argument. If I was in a non-centralist party and we passed a resolution that I really disagreed with, the whole faction that was in dissent would either support the issue half-heartedly or openly oppose it. Then, if the proposal had poor results, the majority would say "well, if only we would have had the full weight of the party behind us, things would've been different!"

Basically, centralism, when properly implemented, ensures that all inner-party disputes find their proper resolution, and that the Party stays unified and firm in the face of a VERY unified and VERY firm capitalist class enemy.

On the whole vanguard thing, I don't have time to get into that now, but I will later unless someone beats me to it.

[Revulero]

Yeah I understand the purpose of democratic centralism, but the opposite can be said against it. What if the party gets hijacked by reformist like the CPUSA and passes their own resolution what would happen to the true revolutionaries in the party?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

What if your non-democratic centralist party gets hijacked by reformists?

The only antidote to that is complete control in the hands of the leader (no democratic stuff) -- which is what CPUSA had to adopt in the 1950s when half the people in its ranks were FBI spies. And is adopting now to "unify" for the Obamanites. :laugh:

[RedScare]

I've also been very interested by PSL in my searching for a party, but as a friend once warned me, I'm also aware that quite often party recruiters will look at someone like me and think "Oh boy, fresh meat!"

So I'm a little reserved about joining anything. Does PSL have any presence on college campuses? For example, working within SDS?

[Kassad]

RedScare, the PSL works on college campuses through the party and the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition. We are not currently affiliated with any other groups. I see you're from Washington DC and that's absolutely perfect geographically. Behind San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago, Washington DC is the area that is the most active with ANSWER and the PSL.

You can find information on the PSL branch in Washington here: http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WashingtonDC
ANSWER Coalition Contact information here: http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_contact_us

Give them a call. We do not look at new recruits as 'fresh meat.' We look at them as potential revolutionaries, activists and most of all, workers. This isn't an obligation to join, trust me. Just give them a call. Is there any chance you were attending the March on the Pentagon on March 21st?

[RHIZOMES]

When observing communist parties in the United States, once you filter out the revisionist parties, the social-democratic parties and the reformist parties, you are only left with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I recommend checking them out. I live far from a branch, but I still receive materials to organize. Frankly, I don't give two shits if Communist Party USA has 100,000 members. They have absolutely no activist presence, no presence in class struggle and they are a party that sympathizes and settles for petty center-right reforms. We can do better than that.

I wouldn't have said it in such a sectarian way, but of the US parties I have looked into, the PSL is the only one which doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. If I ever decide to relocate to AmeriKKKa later in my life, if the PSL is still around I'd definitely join them. A lot of the party's politics and practice seem on the surface to be similiar to WPNZ.

[RedScare]

I was planning to, but prior commitments got in the way. I'll give them a call for sure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those who split with Workers World to found the Party for Socialism and Liberation rejected the idea that Workers World should join UFPJ, as it would be watering down their message and embracing an anti-war, as opposed to anti-imperialist stance.

As we can see, the split was the right decision. In the recent past, Workers World leadership were unable to run a candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election. They endorsed capitalist politician Cynthia McKinney. A party leader posted a video on their website and was ecstatic when Obama was elected, we should note. They have absolutely no means of appealing to youth. The PSL has taken a huge role in ANSWER and it has become much more efficient and active since the split. The split was a battle between appeasing center-left reformists vs. supporting anti-imperialism and socialism. Those who split took the latter position. This was not sectarian or petty, therefore you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I wonder if Workers World should fold into the CP-USA, then. ;)

[ComradeR]

Comrade Marxist Bro thanks for the details on the situation in the cpusa. So it looks like they are in fact a lost cause if reformist liberalism as infected it to that degree. To where the leadership seems to never have even read a bit of Marx and any radical elements are squashed and cut loose if they question the leadership. This is all a damn tragedy considering the history the cpusa has.
I actually have a few questions regarding the PSL.
Such as what is their stance on Cuba?
Or issues like national liberation and how far do they take this concept? Do they take a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" where they support any group fighting against an imperial power regardless or not?
How do they view former socialist states?
Or their view on ongoing revolutionary struggles in South America or South Asia?
How large of an organization are they?
And how do they help someone such as myself get started when I am quite isolated and limited financially?
I'd appreciate it if anyone can answer these.

[Lolshevik]

ComradeR:

From my experience, the PSL has been really helpful in assisting members and supporters who don't live near any of their branches. Basically they plug you into the closest branch and work with you based on your ability level and the specific situation of whatever city/town you live in. I live in Eastern Iowa, so they have me communicating with the Chicago branch and they send me a bundle of their newspaper every two weeks for local distribution.

The PSL supports every anti-imperialist struggle, while reserving the right to criticize that struggle's leadership and also to analyze its class composition. If you go to PSLweb.org and read a few of their back articles on Zimbabwe or Palestine you'll get a better sense of what I mean.

In terms of the revolutionary processes going on in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nepal, the PSL is quite supportive. We even had a speaker from the Venezuelan consulate come to our Chicago conference recently to speak about the situation there. We are, of course, also naturally and most visibly supportive of revolutionary Cuba and the proletarian democracy that exists there.

[Revy]

Remember though, the Communist Party of America was created out of a left-wing split in the Socialist Party of America in 1919.

I think that it's possible that a split in the Communist Party USA can occur at some point in the future, but it won't depend on a few members joining, it's probably going to have to do with a change of conscience by many of the members already in it. the CPUSA will collapse in the aftermath...the pro-Democrat leadership will probably change the name of their group to something more accurate like "Liberals USA". the new split will probably try to reclaim the name Communist Party.

Of course, this is just a theory, I'm not predicting this, but it seems possible. The Socialist Party of America was in exactly the same position in the late '60s and early '70s, supporting Democrats. Then the split happened, and the Socialist Party USA emerged.

I don't think you should join the CPUSA, though. Just follow Kassad's advice.

[ComradeR]

Yeah after looking it over I think I'm going to join the PSL once I get my financial and living situation settled. Thanks for the info and advice everyone.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

ComradeR, I'm leaning towards going PSL myself, but I can't give answers in any significant detail as I'm not a member right now. There's going to be an event here in a few weeks, so I thought that would be a good opportunity to contact the people.

I'm still developing myself ideologically to a great degree, so I'm going to look over the whole gamut of organizations here in the States in any case, but the PSL looks like the bright light right now as far as activism is concerned.

The CPUSA is just reeking of betraying the struggle, though, in far more blatant ways than I'd have thought. Their electoral "struggles" are the worst thing possible.

[Comrade Che]

We can do better than that.

We will do better than that!

[marxistcritic]

I can see you are looking for a radical left party. May I suggest the Black Panther Party as well as the PSL?

[Lolshevik]

I can see you are looking for a radical left party. May I suggest the Black Panther Party as well as the PSL?

I actually had a dream a few nights ago that I was a Black Panther.

Alas, they aren't around anymore.

[thecoffeecake1]

you cant just jump into a radical communism right from capitalism. the psl wants to take away land and make sure it isn't a commodity, which is good after years of transition from capitalism to communism, through socialism. You can't just try to go from a free market economy to a radical communism overnight. imagine that the country will continue to go down the tubes, and the communist movement grows big enough to where by 2016, the communist and socialist parties are able to be in the running in the presidential election. the psl gets elected and just starts going around taking land and businesses away from people ( maybe not physically taking it, but saying this belongs to me now, but you can stay ). this will not work. the Socialist Party USA is the best way to begin the slow transition. brian moore is an amazing person and would make an amazing president and in 2,5,10,20 years after the socialists take over, communism can step in.

Did Marx not say a socialist transition is essential for communism?

[Kassad]

you cant just jump into a radical communism right from capitalism. the psl wants to take away land and make sure it isn't a commodity, which is good after years of transition from capitalism to communism, through socialism. You can't just try to go from a free market economy to a radical communism overnight. imagine that the country will continue to go down the tubes, and the communist movement grows big enough to where by 2016, the communist and socialist parties are able to be in the running in the presidential election. the psl gets elected and just starts going around taking land and businesses away from people ( maybe not physically taking it, but saying this belongs to me now, but you can stay ). this will not work. the Socialist Party USA is the best way to begin the slow transition. brian moore is an amazing person and would make an amazing president and in 2,5,10,20 years after the socialists take over, communism can step in.

Did Marx not say a socialist transition is essential for communism?

This is a total lie on all fronts. Socialist Party USA is not calling for revolutionary socialism. They are calling for democratic revolution (Source: http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html). This means that they aren't advocating a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. They are calling for electoral action in the capitalist system that will reform capitalism democratically, therefore, they are reformists. They want to reform capitalism so much that it resembles socialism, but that will not destroy the capitalist control over society. A working class revolution is needed to do that, not a democratic reformist one.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is calling for the total destruction of the bourgeois dictatorship and declaring that it must be replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Only once a workers state rises can society make progress towards the final stage of communism. Your argument is totally fallacious. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the claim that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is calling for an immediate transfer to communism. That is totally impossible without a working class revolution and transition into communist progress.

What you're advocating is reformism, plain and simple. Socialist Party USA is a reformist party that wants change to come through elections. This is, of course, recognizable as bourgeois democracy, as under capitalism, there is no democracy. I implore you to counter my claims, but of course, that is impossible, as Socialist Party USA is not revolutionary or Marxist, therefore you citing Marx and supporting that party is totally contradictory. On the other hand, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is practicing the application of authentic Marxist-Leninist tenents through forming a party of the working class, fighting for revolution and practicing democratic centralism to further the cause of the working class. You have completely and totally lied. You need to seriously do some research and rethink your position.

[redSHARP]

you might be able to. i have experience dealing with them and they are receptive to new voices. i dubbed their style "american-communism"; they have a nasty habit of taking radical ideals and making them presentable to the american people, which can work, but they need to step it up and be more radical. i suggest looking into them and hopefully you can find elements that are radical and change the party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is a total lie on all fronts. Socialist Party USA is not calling for revolutionary socialism. They are calling for democratic revolution (Source: http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html). This means that they aren't advocating a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. They are calling for electoral action in the capitalist system that will reform capitalism democratically, therefore, they are reformists. They want to reform capitalism so much that it resembles socialism, but that will not destroy the capitalist control over society. A working class revolution is needed to do that, not a democratic reformist one.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is calling for the total destruction of the bourgeois dictatorship and declaring that it must be replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Only once a workers state rises can society make progress towards the final stage of communism. Your argument is totally fallacious. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the claim that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is calling for an immediate transfer to communism. That is totally impossible without a working class revolution and transition into communist progress.

What you're advocating is reformism, plain and simple. Socialist Party USA is a reformist party that wants change to come through elections. This is, of course, recognizable as bourgeois democracy, as under capitalism, there is no democracy. I implore you to counter my claims, but of course, that is impossible, as Socialist Party USA is not revolutionary or Marxist, therefore you citing Marx and supporting that party is totally contradictory. On the other hand, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is practicing the application of authentic Marxist-Leninist tenents through forming a party of the working class, fighting for revolution and practicing democratic centralism to further the cause of the working class. You have completely and totally lied. You need to seriously do some research and rethink your position.

Define "democratic."

To be fair, they too need to have a clearer definition of "democratic" - one that is by no means parliamentary/electoral. I mean, various participatory-democratic experiments in Latin America have shown some of the way.

[Kassad]

I would classify this as linguistical manipulation. The platform for Socialist Party USA is not a communist or a Marxist one. This is shown by their fear of ever referring to workers revolutions or communism, except in a negative pretext. The reason it isn't 'clear' is because they're attempting to veil their reformism. There's no attempt made to contradict their reformist nature. The socialist movement worldwide should already know that elections are not the means of liberation for the proletariat.

[cb9's_unity]

q: What communist countries still exist?

a: China, vietnam, north korea, laos and cuba are socialist states.


I found this is the youth part of the CPUSA website. While there generally is still debate about how socialistic cuba is, does anyone still believe that China is anywhere close to being socialist?

China barely even pretends to be socialist anymore and North Koreans are supposed worship their leader like a god (who can hit holes in one with amazing repetition!). I saw some half decent responses in their FAQ and then saw a bunch of rubish like this and realized how far from reality these guys are.

[KC]

I found this is the youth part of the CPUSA website. While there generally is still debate about how socialistic cuba is, does anyone still believe that China is anywhere close to being socialist?

I know a lot of groups define China as "not yet capitalist" (the CWI's official line, for example, is that the Chinese ruling class is some kind of bonapartist entity, which is completely ridiculous), but I don't know of any that would still consider it socialist (actually I think the FRSO might consider China socialist for some stupid reason).

[KC]

Actually I just remembered that I had a short conversation with an FRSO (frso.org) member about China and this is what she had to say:


I think the case of China is very complicated, which makes sense given the land mass, the geopolitical system they are working in, etc.

But overall I would say that yes, China is socialist. They are making efforts at land reform and building for a people's army. They are working to integrate and level the playing field to areas that have some serious wealth disparates.

To be totally honest I'm just not that up on China, but as a member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization I do uphold the line of the organization that China is a socialist country. If you'd like to talk more I could put you in touch with some of our more seasoned members who are much more up on China and it's contradictions.


And here is actual proof:


May Day is the most widely celebrated holiday in the world. Hundreds of thousands of workers, led by their unions, will march through the streets in Mexico, South Africa and the Philippines. In the socialist countries where the working people rule society - Cuba, China, Vietnam, Democratic Korea and Laos, May Day, or International Workers Day, is a national holiday. It is celebrated with huge rallies of millions. Leaders make speeches opposing war and imperialism, while praising the gains of the laboring classes who are furthering the cause of socialism.

Source (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2006/02/mayday.htm)

Bold mine. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

[cb9's_unity]

China is clearly a complicated case but where I personally wouldn't call it socialist at all, nobody could call it one without a giant ass asterisk that explains why China looks so much like a capitalist right now. And that doesn't even take into account that China and North Korea couldn't even pretend to be workers democracies.

[Kassad]

Well, there's a significant contrast between a 'socialist state' and a state attempting 'socialist construction.' Using examples like Cuba and North Korea, I feel that the reason that socialism has not been able to flourish is due to imperialism and manipulation. North Korea is constantly threatened by the United States with sanctions, not to mention the fact that soldiers have combat drills on the border of North and South Korea to simulate war in that area. The right to self-determination is not recognized in the least when it comes to North Korea and due to their impoverished state, resulting from sanctions and the Korean War (which is ongoing), they are forced into doing anything they can to cling to what little of socialist construction remains, such as universal healthcare and education.

Of course, no one should unconditionally support North Korea. They spend a lot of money having military parades and building large monuments, as opposed to helping out a lot of starving people in the country. Of course, I would say that this is more of an attempt to drive other nations away from potential invasion or military threats, but that's counterproductive, since the media convinces the American people that these are hostile acts that are directed at the United States. Basically, I don't believe that the party in power or the Korean workers are to blame for much, as if their right to self-determination was respected, Korea, like many other nations attempting socialist construction, the nation would likely be on the path to socialism. I see imperialism as the primary enemy here which forces socialist states (Stalin's Russia, North Korea etc.) to spend absurd amounts on military spending due to the consistent threats. I don't consider North Korea a socialist state, as the workers are not totally in power. However, it's depressing that it's a choice between some minor socialist reforms under state control or total destruction of all social gains in favor of bourgeois democracy. I don't think we should spend all of our time criticizing North Korea, as much as we should criticize and oppose imperialism and manipulation of a state working towards socialism.

[FreeFocus]

Out of all the (larger) leftist political parties, the PSL is the one whose line I agree with most, speaking both as an anarchist and staunch anti-imperialist.

[cb9's_unity]

To Kassad,

This really isn't a thread about North Korea but lost in all of this is that using them as an example for an active socialist state is shameful. I agree with you that the western media's idea that military spending in North Korea is directed against the U.S is ridiculous but to my knowledge the military almost officially runs the government. In no socialist country should leaders be treated like gods, nationalism should be so central, and the working class made so absolute (as made obvious by the fact that the government has turned into a sort of monarchy).

Imperialism is obviously bad and makes an impact but it is not responsible for everything. I highly doubt that if the U.S suddenly became completely isolationist that the North Korean government would change at all. Once a military and a dictator are in power they don't simply give it up.

But anyways this is becoming way off topic and at the very least the CPUSA and even its youth section seriously needs to explain its self before supporting such degenerated or capitalist states.

[Kassad]

To Kassad,

This really isn't a thread about North Korea but lost in all of this is that using them as an example for an active socialist state is shameful. I agree with you that the western media's idea that military spending in North Korea is directed against the U.S is ridiculous but to my knowledge the military almost officially runs the government. In no socialist country should leaders be treated like gods, nationalism should be so central, and the working class made so absolute (as made obvious by the fact that the government has turned into a sort of monarchy).

Imperialism is obviously bad and makes an impact but it is not responsible for everything. I highly doubt that if the U.S suddenly became completely isolationist that the North Korean government would change at all. Once a military and a dictator are in power they don't simply give it up.

But anyways this is becoming way off topic and at the very least the CPUSA and even its youth section seriously needs to explain its self before supporting such degenerated or capitalist states.

No, definitely. I understand your grievances completely, but I feel like you kind of skipped over the point I made on this topic. The military dictatorship that is attempting socialist construction is hardly sustained, due to the impoverished state North Korea is in, as well as consistent colonial and imperial threats. I believe that if left to its own devices, the workers could establish a functioning socialist state, but under constant pressure from imperialism, it is impossible to allow the workers to take power without likely being subjected to destruction. Basically, it's a double-edged sword, but North Korea is not to blame. Imperialism is to blame.

If the United States and Japan left North Korea to its own devices, I sincerely believe that the money they are forced to spend on national defense and weaponry would be used to support the Korean people on the path to socialist construction. However, that is not likely to happen, as imperialism is the primary impediment to the right to self-determination and socialism as a whole.

[Communist]

For two years I tried to get into the CPUSA, to help return it to it's M-L
roots. Although there is supposedly a club in my area, they refuse to contact me. And the national office stopped responding to my emails asking why.
So, I gave up on them. They have absolutely no future, with an organization this wretched. It's almost as though my application statement of being a M-L raised a red flag to where I was blacklisted...and yes I see the horrible irony in that statement.

[Kassad]

For two years I tried to get into the CPUSA, to help return it to it's M-L
roots. Although there is supposedly a club in my area, they refuse to contact me. And the national office stopped responding to my emails asking why.
So, I gave up on them. They have absolutely no future, with an organization this wretched. It's almost as though my application statement of being a M-L raised a red flag to where I was blacklisted...and yes I see the horrible irony in that statement.

Do you have any plans for the future? As always, I would recommend the Party for Socialism and Liberation.