Sam Webb refutes ultraleftist utopian attacks on Obama coalition

[heiss93]

Reflections on some political and ideological questions today



Print (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:window.print%28%29;)
Email to a Friend (http://www.peoplesworld.org/SendToFriend?pid=36084&width=400&height:480)

http://www.peoplesworld.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-sam.jpg by: Sam Webb (http://www.peoplesworld.org/sam-webb)
December 21 2009 tags: commentary (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/commentary), Obama (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/Obama), strategy (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/strategy), tactics (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/tactics)

The president doesn't simply register and reflect the balance of power; he influences it as well; no other person has as much power as the president. To identify him as a centrist Democrat akin to Clinton or Carter or Kennedy conceals more than it reveals; it's too neat. It doesn't help us understand him as a political actor and his place in the broader struggle for progressive change. And it can quickly lead to narrow tactics and a wrong-headed strategic policy.
Some say, for example, that the strategic role of the left is to criticize the president, to push him from left. But is that a good point of departure strategically? Doesn't it elevate a tactical question to a strategic one?
Criticizing the president (especially in the internet age) takes little imagination or effort, far less than activating the various forces that elected him last year. To do the latter takes a strategic sense, flexible tactics, creative thinking, and hard work. The president's report card, it could easily be argued, is better than the coalition that elected him. He doesn't get an A, but neither do we.
There are no prohibitions against criticism of the president, but it should be done in a unifying and constructive way. The success or failure of the Obama presidency will resonate for years. A deep imprint on class and racial relations will be part of his legacy. It is hard to imagine how a successful struggle for reforms can happen without the president or how anyone other than the extreme right and sections of the ruling class would benefit if his presidency fails.
Attitude towards reform

A very different political and ideological issue that has a bearing on practical politics is the assertion that capitalism has no solutions to the present crisis and can't be reformed.
If this means that the endemic crises of capitalism (for example, cyclical and structural unemployment, regular crises, overproduction, over accumulation, etc.) will persist as long as the profit motive is the singular determinant of economic activity, we would agree.
But if this means that anything short of a system wide change is of little importance, or that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can't be modified, we would disagree.
We should avoid counterposing the bankruptcy of capitalism against the struggle for reforms under capitalism. Such juxtaposition is unnecessary and counterproductive. If we don't struggle for the latter (reforms), what we say about the former (systemic nature of problems) will carry little weight nor will we get to where we want to go - socialism.
Capitalism is more elastic than some believe. It changes on its own (its internal laws motion - what Marx studied in "Capital") and is modified by the class struggle. Look at its historical development if you don't believe so.
Role of the working class

Still another ideological question is the role of the working class in general and the labor movement in particular. The right wing and mass media (not just Fox) either heap abuse on the labor movement or make it invisible. They are well aware of the new developments in organized labor, and recoil at the prospect of a revitalizing labor movement. None of this is a surprise.
What is surprising is that many progressive and left people either have a blind spot when it comes to the labor movement, or see it as just another participant, or refuse to see - even dismiss out of hand - the new developments within it.
Leading up to the AFL-CIO convention, we heard more than once that labor should be "a social movement," that it should "take on capital," etc. But, unless you are the hostage of "pure" forms of the class struggle, isn't that what labor is doing - in the elections last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?
Granted it's not across the board, there are still backwaters, the old style of leadership hasn't completely disappeared, and rank-and-file participation is not where it should be.
But isn't that an old movie? Is going over in righteous indignation the litany of sins of the labor movement the most productive thing that we can do? Doesn't it make far more sense to note the new development and directions, the new thinking, and the new composition of labor's leadership? Do we think that the transition from the legacy of the Cold War and the so-called Golden Age of capitalism can happen in a day, in a month, in a decade? Change is hard, but when sprouts of change come to the light of day we should nurture them.
Our understanding of Marxism reveals that in the process of exploitation, not only surplus value, but also oppositional tendencies arise - albeit uneven and full of contradictions and inconsistencies - but arise nonetheless to challenge corporate prerogatives and class rule.
An under appreciation of the new developments in labor can only weaken the broader movement for change.
Marxism

Finally, Marxism is an open-ended, integrated, and comprehensive set of ideas to conceptualize and change the world - a world outlook. It brings to the light the existing and developing regularities and laws of social development of societies, and especially capitalist society.
Thus, continually deepening our understanding of Marxism's basic theoretical constructions is of crucial importance to us - not to mention the movement as a whole.
At the same time, Marxism is not simply a science (understood in a general sense) and worldview, but it is also a methodology.
Marxist methodology absorbs and metabolizes new experience; it gives special weight to new phenomena.
It isn't about timeless abstractions, pure forms, ideal types, categorical imperatives unsullied by inconvenient facts, unexpected turns and anomalies; it doesn't turn partial demands, reformist forces, inconsistent democrats, liberals, social democratic labor leaders, even blue dog democrats, into a contagious flu to be avoided at all costs.
Marxist methodology insists on a concrete presentation of a question and an exact estimate of the balance of forces at any given moment.
As a method of analysis, Marxism emphasizes fluidity, reexamining old and new questions, process, dialectics, and movement; it's about allowing space for individuals and organizations to change.
We should deepen our understanding of Marxism as a science and methodology. And we should not give too much attention to those who take issue with us from the left. When we do, it cuts down on our ability to think creatively and respond practically to new opportunities and developments.
In the era of the Internet, everyone's voice is amplified. If some try to turn Marxism into a sacred canon much like the strict constitutional jurists and biblical literalists do with the Constitution and Bible, so be it; if they want to spend all their time looking for examples of right deviations, to the point where they themselves are simply self-satisfied observers of struggle and too busy to build the people's movement or, in the case of those who are in our party, build our organization and press, so be it.
We will go our own way, focusing our energy and talents on building the working-class movement and our party and press, and be much the wiser for it.


http://www.peoplesworld.org/reflections-on-some-political-and-ideological-questions-today/
http://www.peoplesworld.org/what-if/

[9]

Is it just me, or does this sound like a prelude to an endorsement of Obama's presidential bid in 2012? What is this guy really saying? That only ultra-lefts reject supporting liberal bourgeois politicians?
It's a pretty strange article, in my opinion; he sounds like a typical mainstream Democrat, only trying to use Marxist-sounding rhetoric to appeal to radicals and mask what seems to be his underlying message of "don't criticize the Obama administration because it genuinely can bring 'change' to the working class".

[Valeofruin]

Actually no, to those who have been following this thing closely as 'Ultra Left'-ies, it looks more like a prelude to the big split in the cpusa, and the last round of purges.

They are basically doing themselves in.

This is the first time the webbists have confronted opposition so publicly... it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But, unless you are the hostage of "pure" forms of the class struggle, isn't that what labor is doing - in the elections last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?Would you call recommending that the rank and file accept cuts in the auto-industry or in the public sector "the labor movement taking on capital"?!

But of course the CPUSA will support Obama in 2012! Supporting the Democrats and providing a pseudo-social-democratic justification for it has been their loosing strategy since WWII!

[mikelepore]

If this means that the endemic crises of capitalism (for example, cyclical and structural unemployment, regular crises, overproduction, over accumulation, etc.) will persist as long as the profit motive is the singular determinant of economic activity, we would agree.

But if this means that anything short of a system wide change is of little importance, or that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can't be modified, we would disagree.

We should avoid counterposing the bankruptcy of capitalism against the struggle for reforms under capitalism. Such juxtaposition is unnecessary and counterproductive. If we don't struggle for the latter (reforms), what we say about the former (systemic nature of problems) will carry little weight nor will we get to where we want to go - socialism.

If I can manage to parse that mumbo-jumbo, it says: advocate what you don't want, and that will somehow lead the thing that you want, but, if you advocate what you want, that will lead to a failure to get what you want.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We should avoid counterposing the bankruptcy of capitalism against the struggle for reforms under capitalism. If I can manage to parse that mumbo-jumbo, it says: advocate what you don't want, and that will somehow lead the thing that you want, but, if you advocate what you want, that will lead to a failure to get what you want.

He's really arguing a straw-man. He is saying that criticisms of Obama are really just criticisms of reformism; he is completely (possibly even purposefully) misreading anger at Obama now coming from the left (and even from a increasingly vocal section of liberal/progressives). People are angry because Obama ISN'T pushing the REFORMS he promised! People aren't angry that Obama pushed national healthcare rather than revolution, they are angry that he helped bailout the rich while NOT reforming healthcare!

I personally do think reforms (from action from below) are part of the process that will give workers the skills and confidence and self-organization to carry out a real revolution. Webb apparently sees reforms as something coming from the top and given to the workers:


It is hard to imagine how a successful struggle for reforms can happen without the president

It's hard to imagine anyone with this point of view having ever read a word of Marx or a speech by Eugene Debs!

[Raúl Duke]

This article is just one more thing in a long list of things that just denotes what a joke the CPUSA is.

Seriously, even liberals/liberal progressives are becoming critical of Obama and yet here we see this "communist" party saying "oh no don't criticize him, that's ultra-leftist and shows you are against reforms" pssh ultra-leftist my ass.

As mentioned, the heat on Obama has way more to do with the fact that he ain't passing or "lobbying" for reform as much as it was thought out he would do during the run for election. This fact only seems to further confirm what those "ultra-leftists" thought would happen (and one that is even being slowly accepted by liberals, who aren't exactly radical revolutionary "ultra-leftists" at all). The fact that the CPUSA leadership (or just Sam Webbs tendency) doesn't seem to notice only shows detachment from reality.

[KC]

Edit

[blake 3:17]

Earl Browder for 2012!

Some of this was discussed in a thread in one of the groups. My question is why would anyone bother being a member of the CP if they're just going to support the Democrats uncritically? I'm not 100% against class collaboration (more like 99.7% of the time), but if you're going to collaborate with liberal or reformist political formations you need to put a price on it.

Dude sounds like a waste of time. Hopefully a split would produce a current that would be open to genuine class struggle politics.

[Floyce White]

Long before the election, I said that Obama was not a liberal, not a centrist, but a conservative. I called him a "boll weevil."

Anyone who was familiar with the British TV series "Yes, Minister" had a good laugh at the word "change" appearing below Obama's talking head.

While campaigning for president, Obama said he would change nothing about the war, would change nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act, would change nothing about the banking structure, and so on. So why should anyone be surprised that he is failing to do anything--just as he promised? Conserving existing structures and policies is conservatism. Obama's administration conserves the policies and practices of his predecessor Bush. Obama's presidency is conservative. How is this so hard to admit? Sam Webb long since deluded himself. Don't fall for his false dilemma of "progressive Democrats" versus "reactionaries."

I could say exactly the same things about Brown and his predecessor Blair. But worse for them, the Labour Party is now no different from the Tories. A conservative Labour Party is a redundancy that can be eliminated.

[Intelligitimate]

Actually no, to those who have been following this thing closely as 'Ultra Left'-ies, it looks more like a prelude to the big split in the cpusa, and the last round of purges.

They are basically doing themselves in.

This is the first time the webbists have confronted opposition so publicly... it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Yes, this is a very interesting development indeed. That this is a open attack on the minority opposition is obvious. They recently shot down their proposal to condemn the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. The CPUSA is going to purge the Left opposition, and then more than likely completely liquidate itself as a communist organization.

What I am wondering is what the opposition will do.

[heiss93]

What if?

by: Sam Stark (http://www.peoplesworld.org/sam-stark)
December 23 2009


http://www.peoplesworld.org/assets/Uploads/SigningOfTheSocialSecurityActCROPPED.jpg
What if this is 1935 and Congress is getting ready to vote on the Social Security Act?
As political progressives, union activists or whatever, do you support the bill or oppose it?
No-brainer, right?
So what if I told you that by supporting the 1935 Social Security Act you would be selling out the working class and capitulating to right-wing special interests who wrote half the bill?
Didn't see that one coming, didja?
To get Social Security passed, progressives had to agree to exclude nearly one-half of the working class, including two-thirds of all African Americans and more than one-half of all women.
Yep, that's the deal you would have had to make in 1935 to pass what we know now is one of the most progressive and successful governmental programs of all time. But in 1935, it didn't look that way when progressives had to accept the deal racist, reactionary Southern Democrats laid down in exchange for their votes.
These backward elements held power over key committees that could have scuttled Social Security and prevented even a vote. Their deal? Exclude all domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians and social workers. Their special interest? Keeping power by keeping intact the American-style apartheid system they presided over.
So what do we do? Kill the bill and try to come back later or take what you can get now?
Remember this deal was made by progressives during the left's glory days. That's when we had one of the most progressive presidents ever in the White House, the most progressives ever in Congress and the biggest mass movement ever out in the streets. And progressives still had to cut a deal with the Devil.
Protesting is easy. Governing is a *****.
So let's bring this "what if" game to the present.
What if you are a member of Congress in 2009: do you vote for the deal cut in the Senate or vote to kill the bill?
Not so easy anymore, is it?
We know the flawed Social Security bill was strengthened over the years, adding household workers in 1950 and agricultural, hotel, laundry and state and local government workers in 1954. What we don't know is the future of the current flawed health care bill.
The one nice thing we do know is that improving it will be a lot easier than passing the original bill. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out, many of the future improvements can be done through reconciliation with a simple majority vote as opposed to the anti-democratic, super-majority 60-vote process that gave the sociopath Joe Lieberman power to kill the public option and prevent lowering the enrollment age for Medicare to 55.
So what do we do now?
We still have to figure that one out. But one thing we can't afford to do is make single-payer a dogma. Such rigidity in strategy ties our hands and limits our options. Looking at the world, we see that more nations accomplished the goal of health care for all through a multi-payer system, not a single-payer one. Only Canada, Taiwan and South Korea have chosen to go single-payer.
France is considered to have the world's best health care system while Japan has the longest healthy life expectancy. Single-payer systems? Hardly. French citizens are covered by 14 private insurance companies. The Japanese have about 3,500 private health insurance plans. These multi-payer systems succeed because private insurers there are not allowed to make a profit selling health insurance.
Every nation that has committed itself to providing health care for all its citizens has followed its own unique path to get there. It's a sure bet the United States will never adopt the socialized medicine system of Great Britain, even though our Veterans Administration already is a socialized system with government-owned, government-run hospitals and government-hired doctors.
We could build on this flawed health care bill by expanding Medicare to all Americans of all ages. That would be the most direct route to single payer since the structure already exists, is quite popular (even Tea Baggers love their Medicare) and operates way more efficiently than private insurance with its 3 percent administrative costs verses 20 percent to 30 percent for private insurers.
But it's not certain that most Americans are prepared to kill a whole industry even if many of the clerical workers are absorbed by Medicare to serve the new enrollees.
The private sector has always had a role in our government-run health care. Most of the Medicare workers who process and pay claims are employees of private insurance companies. That was the result of a deal struck in 1965 to help win support for passage of Medicare.
The creation of health insurance exchanges under both the House and Senate bills and the Senate's provision that private insurance companies must reduce their administrative costs to 10 percent could move us in the direction of a French-German-Japanese-Swiss model. In these and other multi-payer countries, private insurers collect premiums set by government regulation, pay all claims immediately under rates set by government negotiations with doctors and hospitals, and cannot deny coverage for any reason under strict government regulation.
So what if it turns out that most Americans decide they prefer a multi-payer over a single-payer health care system?
Protesting is easy. Governing is a *****.

[Red Saxon]

Democrats are conservative by the world's standards, btw. You can't trust anyone from the Democratic party, or anyone who supports them for that matter.

[Intelligitimate]

Perhaps you can give us your own take on the internal contradictions in the CPUSA, heiss93?

[Pogue]

This is not an example of ultra-leftism. Its a sign of fucking common sense.

[heiss93]

Perhaps you can give us your own take on the internal contradictions in the CPUSA, heiss93?

I don't think there are serious internal contradictions inside the CPUSA. Alan Maki the main instigator was expelled from the party in 2007 and uses multiple personas online to create a controversy that does not exists. Even sinking low enough to misrepresent himself as a CPUSA leader and give interviews to John Birchers to expose Obama's "communist" ties. If you read the discussions at the articles I linked to, you will see that the "dissenters" represent a tiny minority in the party who have been consistently outvoted.

The CPUSA represents a centrist current of the world Communist movement. It has not embraced Eurocommunism and is to the left of CPs of China, Japan, Russia and India. The CPs to the left of the CPUSA are in Latin America, Portugal and Greece. While there are some friendly disagreements this is mostly due to different contradictions.

The Democratic Party is akin to the Radical Socialist Party of France. It has its origins in the Democratic-Republican Societies which were supported by the Revolutionary French Republic. Today the RSP of France is a Gaullist Party taking part in a center-right coalition, and yet they are the direct descendants of the French Jacobins. In the same way the DP can be seen as the legacy of the American Jacobins. Marx and Lenin saw the importance of alliance with the Jacobin section of the bourgeoisie.

I suggest a perusal of Marx and Engels' brilliant observations of the unique political situation in the USA

"First, the Constitution, based as in England upon party government, which causes every vote for any candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties to appear to be lost. And the American, like the Englishman, wants to influence his state; he does not throw his vote away."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/america.htm

Thursday, September 06, 2007
http://x.myspace.com/images/spacer.gif CPUSA Statement
Issues concerning recent emails/statements by Alan Maki

The Communist Party, USA is taking the unusual step of issuing this statement because of a barrage of recent emails and public statements by Alan Maki. Many have received emails from Alan Maki attacking a broad range of progressive activists. In many he represents himself as a member of the Communist Party, USA.

Alan Maki is not a member of nor does he reflect the views of the Communist Party, USA. He was dropped from membership three years ago because of his attacks on progressives. He continues to target elected officials, union leaders, and other leaders in the broader mass movements for social change.

The Communist Party believes the only path to social and economic justice is through the struggle for unity. We are deeply involved in efforts to organize the broadest possible coalitions against the Bush administration and its policies. The policies of the Communist Party have long been premised on working to unite all who struggle for democracy, peace and justice.

National Board, CPUSA 8.24.2007

[hugsandmarxism]

Saw Sam Webb's name in the title, and didn't read beyond that. Rep me if the CPUSA is the left wing of the Democrats. :ninja:

[Intelligitimate]

heiss93, what do you think of this?

http://mltoday.com/en/another-dark-day-in-cpusa-history-739.html
http://mltoday.com/en/heads-in-the-sand-744.html

[FSL]

IThe CPUSA represents a centrist current of the world Communist movement.


It represents a disgusting current that does injustice to the world communist movement, to all its history and all its members in the past and now. If some people there, most as it seems to be, like genocidal murderers like Obama can you please support them from somewhere else and not from within a CP?

Honestly, what are some people who praise these "progressive" policies do in a communist party I'll never know. Disheartening.

[Wanted Man]

It has not embraced Eurocommunism and is to the left of CPs of China, Japan, Russia and India.
Surely, that is the least that should be expected of a communist party today. Eurocommunism has proven itself bankrupt, and what kind of degenerates look to those other parties as ideological examples?


The CPs to the left of the CPUSA are in Latin America, Portugal and Greece. While there are some friendly disagreements this is mostly due to different contradictions.
Quite. You are, of course, free to choose your own direction. Over here, however, we have seen what happens when this particular road is taken. Where I come from, they took over the party and liquidated it wholesale, and the party that succeeded it is now a liberal party that supported the bombing of Yugoslavia and whose youth wing has campaigned against trade unions along with other liberal and conservative groups.

So yeah, I hope you'll understand why most international comrades will get a little "uneasy" when revisionist crap is being spread under the guise of "refuting ultraleftists". Don't come crying here when the CPUSA gets liquidated by its own leadership as well, and your "centrist majority" will either be powerless to stop it, or unwilling. After all, it's much easier playing loyal opposition to Obama as part of some "Progressive" faction of the Democrats.

[blake 3:17]

The Communist Party believes the only path to social and economic justice is through the struggle for unity. We are deeply involved in efforts to organize the broadest possible coalitions against the Bush administration and its policies. The policies of the Communist Party have long been premised on working to unite all who struggle for democracy, peace and justice.

National Board, CPUSA 8.24.2007

It's basically the Bernstein-Luxemburg debate a hundred years later. What do they mean by unity?

[Floyce White]

blake 3:17's quote from the CP National Board: "...the struggle for unity. . . . the broadest possible coalitions..."

The eternal pitch of the reformist shill.

heiss93: "What if this is 1935 and Congress is getting ready to vote on the Social Security Act?"

Sorry, Heiss93. You're barking up the wrong tree. When I was in my early teens, my parents got sick. Their illnesses were chronic and debilitating, but were not on the list to qualify for Social Security disability. My family lived on Social Security supplemental checks every third of the month.

The last week of the month, I ate such food as seasoning salt on crackers, Miracle Whip sandwiches, and whatever was left in the bottoms of jars in the refrigerator (catsup and apple butter and such). Generally, we had one meal a day--often just hot dogs or macaroni and cheese. We ate so well compared to other Social Security recepients because we lived in Texas and paid only $70 a month rent. The stories of Social Security retirees eating dog food--were absolutely true.

I couldn't find any job, but we did go to the park and pick pecans to sell for 25 cents a pound. My mother babysitted literally dozens of babies all alone at a neighbor's business for twenty dollars a month.

My parents' generation was betrayed by the promises of Social Security just as my generation is now betrayed by the promises of retirement funds.

Heiss93, I never leaned on my early hardships as an excuse to mouth slogans and stop thinking for myself. I suggest that you listen to workers in the real world for a few years and abstain from cut-and-pastes of the party line.

[RadioRaheem84]

Democrats opposed to the Senate health care bill sound more leftist then this Sam Webb.:confused:

I'm confused, why is the CPUSA such in awe of Obama? Even liberal/progressive rags jumped off that sinking ship months ago.

[manic expression]

Sam Webb has never refuted anything in his entire life, as evidenced by his little talk with co-capitalist Glenn Beck. He couldn't even refute Glenn Beck's insistence that Nazism means "Nationalized Socialism". :laugh:

And yes, blake is completely correct, Sam Webb is a Bernstein wannabe. He probably daydreams about supporting WWI from the Reichstag while he licks the Democrats' collective ass.

[mikelepore]

In an editorial that he wrote 101 years before Sam Webb wrote the above, De Leon pointed out that socialism doesn't mean a list of improvements. Socialism means a new social system, which would have, as its result, a list of improvements. This is an important distinction.

Anyone tempted by reformism should please read it - 782 words, 4803 bytes:
http://www.deleonism.org/text/19081102.htm

[Ravachol]

To be short and blunt: The CPUSA is simply collaborating with capital. That's it really.

Sure, some of Obama's policies might be 'less worse' than the ones of the previous administration. But honestly, so what? Even toying with the thought any permanent gains for the working class can be made through the structures of bourgoise society is backwards on a whole new level. It's reformism in it's purest form. Now i'm not saying one shouldn't be actively agitating within bourgoise structures (such as trade unions), but expecting permanent gains for the working-class from these structures alone without active revolutionary activity within them, as one does by endorsing Obama and his policies which are not in the least influenced by class struggle, is just infantile nonsense. What's the next step? Rejecting class struggle as 'ultra-leftist' and arguing in favor of corporatist class-colaboration with capital? Welcome to the dead-end of social-democracy. If there's one thing i'm happy about, as far as the current political situation in my country is concerned, it's the liquidation of social-democracy. It's class-treason, period.

[el_chavista]

Well, I had to say thanks to "Heiss93" because anybody can also use Webb's arguments to support reformists and social-liberals in Latin America :rolleyes:

[Ravachol]

Well, I had to say thanks to "Heiss93" because anybody can also use Webb's arguments to support reformists and social-liberals in Latin America :rolleyes:

If you are referring to Chavez or Morales. Whatever you or I think of them, they're a different cup of Tea than Obama for god's sake. He class struggle and the cause of labor AREN'T ISSUES with Obama and his policies by no means advance the cause of labor. Regardless of your opinion on Chavez, at least his politics are rooted within the cause of labor.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm beginning to think that the CPUSA and its supporters ought to be banned on RevLeft.

[Revy]

They'll probably change their name soon.

And then they will sink into further irrelevance, or cease to exist at all. Because if they're not "Communist" or at least calling themselves "socialist" then what purpose do they have exactly?

They're already members of the Democratic Party. It's a dual membership thing they've got going on. Not entryism - their uncritical support for the imperialist capitalists shows they will never attempt to challenge them or enter as a faction (though entryism into the Democratic Party has been a dream of US social democrats for the last 50 or more years, it's what effectively destroyed the old SP in the late '60s and early '70s)

I think there would be a new Communist Party in the US once this one collapses. It will probably be a lot more respectable too.

[RED DAVE]

The CPUSA is going to purge the Left opposition, and then more than likely completely liquidate itself as a communist organization.The CPUSA stopped being a "communist organization" sometime in thelate 1920s or early 1930s.


What I am wondering is what the opposition will do.Why would anyone care about what any faction of the CPUSA does?

RED DAVE

[Revy]

I doubt that there is a "faction".

[Die Neue Zeit]

And yes, blake is completely correct, Sam Webb is a Bernstein wannabe. He probably daydreams about supporting WWI from the Reichstag while he licks the Democrats' collective ass.

No, Webb is an Ebert wannabe. Bernstein opposed WWI on pacifistic grounds.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It does seem like the CPUSA has ceased to serve any purpose on the left. Thus, it is probably throughly reputable for the rest of the left to demand either its liquidation or a purge of the right-wing leadership.

Are ordinary party members generally still Marxists? Or is the whole cadre just one Social Democratic mass?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The entire cadre is one social-democratic mass, I'm afraid.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It does seem like the CPUSA has ceased to serve any purpose on the left. Thus, it is probably throughly reputable for the rest of the left to demand either its liquidation or a purge of the right-wing leadership.

Are ordinary party members generally still Marxists? Or is the whole cadre just one Social Democratic mass?

Frankly I don't know if I've ever met any rank and file members - at least they didn't let on if they were members. I bet a lot of their support comes from "fellow travelers" and people who like the idea of being radical but are not involved in any practical activity or people with an attraction to left-wing ideas that live in isolated areas where there isn't much activism or left-wing presence. They see the name "communist" and they think, I can't/won't organize anything but at least my party affiliation is an act of opposition.

[chegitz guevara]

Are ordinary party members generally still Marxists? Or is the whole cadre just one Social Democratic mass?

It's largely just social democrats, but there are a lot of younger, revolutionary minded youth joining the organization, with illusions in Stalin as a revolutionary democrat.

[NoBordersNoNations]

I've not met Webb, but plenty of other CPUSA members who were completely divorced from anything approaching a Marxist analysis of well...anything.

I was actually surprised at how inept Webb was on Fox News while somehow still holding onto the reigns of his own party.

[heiss93]

The CPUSA's position represents an attempt to creatively reshape Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century. Even Alan Maki the main ultraleft opponent of the CP regards Earl Browder as a great people's leader in spite of his later 1940s errors. The 1930s-1940s Popular Front of the CPUSA and New Dealers represents the most successful movement the Left has ever launched in the USA, and that included Debs SP and the 60s New Left. Browder's attempts to Americanize M-L should not be dismissed as revisionism. Instead it should be seen as a pioneering effort in the spirit of Lukacs, Gramsci, Togiallati, Mao, Deng, Castro. Stalinian Marxism-Leninism of the 1920s-1940s represented the highest level of progressive thought at its time, and we should defend its genuine achievements. At the same time we should not be held hostage to its dogmatic flaws. IF there is any lesson of 20th century Marxism, it is that each Communist Party must lead its' working class along its own national road to socialism. The current World Communist Movement takes many diverse forms. In Russia, the CPRF integrates the Russian national and populist traditions. In Eastern Europe and Mongolia, the majority of the former ruling CPs have merged into the Socialist International, while the minority faction has seen it necessary to work in a broad coalition with Social Democrats. The 1953 Socialist International has evolved in a progressive direction thanks to the influence of 3rd world socialism. Thus nearly every CP in W. and E. Europe, Latin America and AfroAsia have worked in a coalition with the parties of the SI. The ruling CPC of China, has created a special relationship with the SI.

In this spirit it is necessary to examine the unique role the Democratic Party plays in the USA. The oppressed nationalities play a major role in the USA, and their struggle is contained nearly entirely within the DP. Then there is the question of social democracy. While in Europe rightwing labor sellouts while using the banner of socialism, in the USA even the most militant left shuns the socialist banner. This backwardness should not be underestimated. Thus we are in a unique situation where the CP must play a major role in fighting for the demands of social democracy. But this presents the possibility of using that fight to advance to a more radical stage. Obama's victory has shifted the progressive left to the strategic offensive. However the tactical offensives of the ultraright have reached a dangerous intensity far exceeding the Bush years. Thus to secure offensive gains, we must first wage a vigilant tactical defense of the Obama coalition.

I think this article by CPNY leader Dan Margolis sheds light on the necessity of this strategy:

http://www.peoplesworld.org/i-m-not-going-to-protest-president-obama/
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/winqw/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.pngfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/winqw/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.png
I'm not going to protest President Obama

http://www.peoplesworld.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-danmargolis2.jpg by: Dan Margolis (http://www.peoplesworld.org/dan-margolis)
October 21 2009 tags: National (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/National), Obama (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/Obama), Democratic Party (http://www.peoplesworld.org/analysis/tag/Democratic+Party)

I'll say it out front: I'm not going to spend my time protesting the president. While there are some things he's said and done with which I disagree and would openly and plainly criticize, in many ways I don't want him moving to the left.
There. I've said it. But let me explain.
Nine months after the election of Barack Obama, there are a lot of things going on here in the United States about which to be unhappy, and of course there are the things that are being done by the U.S. that affect the rest of the world that are equally bad. None of this is, or should be, surprising. What surprises me is the number of people, even politically astute people, who actually are surprised or angry at Obama. I can understand the "surprise" from the right-wing pundits: their sham "indignation" and "outrage" and false populism are an obvious, and expected, ploy to discredit the first-ever African American president.
But many on the left have also expressed disappointment, and even open condemnation. Did anyone really expect that the election of Obama, or indeed, the election of any man or woman, was going to solve all of America's problems? This would suggest a degree of naïveté and lack of understanding of the dynamics of power, particularly as they are expressed in this country.
First things first: We have to consider the president's achievements, or at least some of them. The entire tone in this country, and emanating from this country, is different, more democratic. Our nation is seen by most of the world as less likely to provoke a war. We've been able to begin dialogue with the Russians, and with the rest of the world, on the necessity of abolishing nuclear weaponry. Cuban-Americans can now visit their families as often as they want.
The Lily Ledbetter Act. Expansion of S-CHIP (the program the Bush administration and Republican Congress discussed getting rid of) to 11 million more children; banning torture; and forward motion on ending the Iraq war also top the list. As well consider the stimulus program, which even now with only half of the money spent, has arguably saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the fact that Congress's main talk right now is a discussion of how to provide health care for everyone, something that has eluded this country for decades. An actual relationship between the White House and the labor movement has been developed. Perhaps this is the most striking thing: not since the days of FDR has there been such a pro-labor president, so committed to meeting routinely with labor, either by going to the AFL-CIO convention, meeting with leaders or supporting a labor agenda.
Et cetera.
But then, as people often point out, there are still problems: immigration raids, continued occupation of Afghanistan, the potential watering down of the health care bills to something less than ideal, immigration raids, not much motion forward on the LGBT rights questions, continued racism, skyrocketing unemployment, the jobless recovery, the potentiality of a "double dip" recession. Et cetera.
There are those who see the glass as half-full, giving the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, and those who see it as half-empty, calling the administration a disappointment. Then there are those people who see the glass with the liquid in it as shattered into sharp pieces all over the table, gashing the hands of those trying to get a drink. (In other words, "Obama's the same as Bush.")
If one analyzes the situation objectively, it has to be said that Obama's been as good as the current balance of forces in the country overall, and especially in the Senate (which, by its very nature, favors more conservative elements), allows him to be. As president, he has to navigate a highly complex labyrinth of power in which, if you move too far in one direction, right or left, or too fast, you will alienate a big enough section of your supporters that you will be defeated and, if too much momentum is lost because of this, your agenda dies.
Obama has two roles: One is as the leader of the democratic, people's coalition that won the elections in 2008; the other is president of the United States of America.
The coalition that he leads, that elected him, itself contains contradictory elements. There's the labor movement, the women's movement, racially and nationally oppressed peoples, youth at its core, as well as peace activists, a majority section of the LGBT community, most of the Jewish community, and so on. But, at the same time, sections of corporate monopoly capital were part of that coalition as well. All of these sectors have different demands and points of view that are expressed as the different political tendencies, progressive, liberal, centrist and so on.
This coalition defeated the Republican coalition, that extreme section of monopoly capital, with its mass base in the evangelical churches (which themselves have been splitting politically); small towns, exurbs and rural communities (where support is also slipping); as well as the West and South (where support for the ultra-right has also slipped).
The agenda that Obama puts forward has to take all of this into account; it is necessary not to alienate a section of the people's coalition.
As president, he has to take into account that he's presiding over a country where tens of millions of people voted for John McCain. It's necessary, for further progress, to try to bring these people, mainly regular working people, into the coalition for progress (thus the need for "bipartisanship.") Will he act as a president who erodes the base of support for the extreme right, accelerates the movement of progressive evangelicals and others into the democratic fold? Or will he harden those divisions? Further, he's got to deal with the Senate, which, as mentioned earlier, by giving every state two votes, amplifies the power of some (largely more conservative sectors of the U.S.) and diminishes the power of others. Also, you can't pass anything with merely a simple majority; you need to take the problem of filibuster into account. All of this has to be considered, even if it means moving more slowly than we'd like.
An undemocratic reality to be sure, but one that must be navigated.
This is why we're not in a situation where we can win single-payer health care right now. If that were even the original proposal, the original all-people's coalition (which includes some big corporations) wouldn't have been able to coalesce around it, and-well, we can just imagine the debates in the Senate. As things stand right now, a simple public option to government health plan is hard to get passed. Right wing radio hosts have fanned hysteria that this choice is a government takeover that will kill grandma. Consequently, Obama's had to hedge a bit: Public option is not, he says, the be-all and end-all of health care reform. (He's hedging, but he's not lying; public option isn't the only way to define whether or not the eventual outcome of the health care struggle is a victory.)
It would have been suicidal to jeopardize the very possible steps forward for health care reform-steps forward that may actually produce some form of universal health care-by pushing for that which is the most "progressive." It would have set the agenda backwards; a victory will allow the fight to continue, but from a higher stage.
The same dynamics come into play when it comes to the automobile industry restructuring, the size of the stimulus package (too small, but the biggest possible), immigration reform, LGBT issues, the Employee Free Choice Act, environmental issues, the war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo detainee resettlement, etc. In all of this there is the problem of trying to figure out how fast and far to advance.
To restate what's in the title of this article: I'm not going to criticize Obama. If he moves to the left without widespread public sentiment, he'd end up breaking the whole coalition of which he's the leader, and he could ensure a return to extreme right-wing control in 2010. (The same could be said of a move too far to the right, but I don't see any real probability of that.) It would be terrible if the minority of people in this country who are on the left were somehow able to convince the president to, say, call for complete socialized medicine and to attack U.S. imperialism. That victory might taste sweet for a short while, but for the reasons I've already mentioned, it would by pyrrhic.
According to a Frederick Engels in his Peasant War in Germany, in talking about leaders whose own ideas, or parts of the movement behind them (here we might also think of Lincoln who, it can be argued, was always for the abolition of slavery), were to the left of what society as a whole can handle:
What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do ... depends not upon him...
Of course, Obama's not a god. Maybe it's extreme to say I'll never criticize the president; there are here and there some criticisms to be made. Also, there's an extremely large and necessary role for left and progressive forces in both defending the Obama agenda and building forward movement, but that is the topic of a different article. The main point here is that Obama is an ally of progress, and we should be very careful about condemning him and, in so doing, weakening the movement he leads. That's up to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to try.

[RED DAVE]

Obama has two roles: One is as the leader of the democratic, people's coalition that won the elections in 2008; the other is president of the United States of America. ... The main point here is that Obama is an ally of progress, and we should be very careful about condemning him and, in so doing, weakening the movement he leads.If there is an Oscar for Disgraceful Political Remark by a Representative of a Pseudo-Leftwing Organization, we have a hands-down winner.

RED DAVE

[FreeFocus]

Let me be perfectly blunt and concise: who the fuck cares about what Sam Webb, or the CPUSA for that matter, thinks? They are politically irrelevant and politically unprincipled.

Obama is a capitalist. Obama is an imperialist.

Obama has made no significant breaks with the Bush administration. He might do a piecemeal thing here, a gesture there, all of them designed to stifle resistance and dissent, all of them designed to unite the working class (and the oppressed generally) in the United States and the world behind imperialism and a blind belief in some sort of post-racial America.

Obama has done more damage than any Republican could have done. That's my honest opinion. The fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize only demonstrates this. Obama is the only American political elite who can send 30,000 more troops to occupy a country, support a brutal blockade on the Gaza Strip, bomb Yemen, spread capitalism, and undermine democracy in Latin America while continuing to give life to the myth of a freedom-loving United States. And it's not just liberals who like Obama. It's people who are affected by his policies, in slums in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, who are amazed because he's a brown man at the head of an empire. Bush couldn't brainwash these people. Obama can, and has, although his ability to do so hasn't been as thorough as I expected.

[Floyce White]

Heiss93 does not respond to actual posts.

This thread is flypaper. Heiss93 bot counts the number of responses as "success."

[RED DAVE]

I've sent Heiss93 a PM inviting him to respond to the criticisms posted on this thread. No response yet. I suggest that others PM him as well.

RED DAVE

[heiss93]

I already responded to the main current of the criticisms in my intro to Margolis' article. Basically dogmatic abstractions have no use to concrete situations. The USA is still a nation where half the working class votes Republican. Under such conditions waging a primarily defensive battle against the ultraright, while also reaching for some social democratic gains is very radical. We still live in an America where Kucinich, who is not even a right-Social Democrat, is considered moonbat crazy left. The tiny Green Party which is considered the far-left alternative, for the most part advocates an economic policy that is simply left-Keynesean regulation. This is the reality we face. So yes many of the things we are fighting for are social democratic, but the US working class never had the same education in the limits of social democracy that Western Europeans had. So this is a necessary part of working class struggle which opens the possibility of more radical stages. The CPUSA criticizing Obama now would have no impact whatsoever on the political scene, build a mass movement will.

I don't personally agree with everything the CPUSA does, and from a real-politick perspective the CP could probaly help Obama more by criticizing him since the main readers of their pro-Obama articles are NewZeal Glenbats and FreeRepublic. Despite that I think their realism in examining where political consciousness in the USA ACTUALLY is, is refreshing on the left.

But I'm NOT the official representative of the CPUSA on Revleft. If you want more details on the internal debate in the CPUSA, I invite you to read through the lively discussions taking place in the comments section of the articles I linked to at PWW. Your welcome to post your criticisms there as well.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sam Webb's right. For example, the Obama administration has recently dramatically reduced the number of persons being tortured, by passionately pleading for the Supreme Court to make it such that people labelled 'suspected enemy combatants' by the government are no longer legal persons. That's pretty damn progressive, I'd say. Those ultraleftist Kucinichites ought to watch their mouths.


If some try to turn Marxism into a sacred canon much like the strict constitutional jurists and biblical literalists do with the Constitution and Bible, so be itWhy is it that people who have no valid arguments are always so quick to compare their opponents to Christian fundamentalists? I mean, I know that baseless accusations of dogmatism as substitute for an argument are an important part of the left (us De Leonites get a lot of it), but perhaps cut down on it a little bit?


Leading up to the AFL-CIO convention, we heard more than once that labor should be "a social movement," that it should "take on capital," etc. But, unless you are the hostage of "pure" forms of the class struggle, isn't that what labor is doing - in the elections last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?Yes, evidently voting in Democrats in order to solve one's problems is going to lead to the self-empowerment of the working class rather than just leading it towards the exact same feeling of powerlessness that have lead it absolutely nowhere over the past few years, y'know.


But if this means that anything short of a system wide change is of little importance, or that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can't be modified, we would disagree.Quite honestly, I find his arguments involving the laws of motion of capitalism rather amusing. They ain't called 'laws' for nothing, mate.

[FSL]

. Despite that I think their realism in examining where political consciousness in the USA ACTUALLY is, is refreshing on the left.



I think that the relative backwardness of the working masses in the Unites States can up to a point be attributed to the very real backwardness of its supposed vanguard.




The USA is still a nation where half the working class votes Republican. Under such conditions waging a primarily defensive battle against the ultraright, while also reaching for some social democratic gains is very radical


Can you explain your positions then? What is it that makes the republicans ultraright? They wage wars? Protect profits?

[Revy]

IThe USA is still a nation where half the working class votes Republican. Under such conditions waging a primarily defensive battle against the ultraright, while also reaching for some social democratic gains is very radical.

No, I think the point is that we tell the working class that both major parties are disgusting ruling class parties and win them over to progressive, revolutionary politics.



We still live in an America where Kucinich, who is not even a right-Social Democrat, is considered moonbat crazy left.By who? This is like saying, "Oh, a lot of people think it's crazy to oppose the war in Afghanistan". Oh, wait. The CPUSA also refuses to criticize that war. The CPUSA should not be supporting Kucinich either. It shouldn't be supporting politicians who refuse to oppose capitalism, when there are socialist choices. It could be running candidates of its own, or at least campaigning non-electorally as a political party, instead of tailing the Democrats at every corner. We don't need to try and make the Democratic Party progressive, because it cannot be made into that!



The tiny Green Party which is considered the far-left alternative, for the most part advocates an economic policy that is simply left-Keynesean regulation.The Green Party is tiny? I don't think so. Anyway, between the two choices of an anti-war progressive party advocating social democracy (which you must, given your other statements, agree is a radical platform compared to the mainstream parties) and the leadership of which is at worst petty-bourgeois supporters of the economic interests of small-business and entrepreneurship, and a corporate bourgeois party engaged in imperialism and stifling the progressive change it is claiming to uphold, you choose the latter! I would have gone for building up a proletarian socialist party like my own instead of both choices. However, if I was forced to support either, there is no question, I would choose to support the Greens as they are clearly not a ruling class party like the one that the CPUSA supports.



This is the reality we face. So yes many of the things we are fighting for are social democratic, but the US working class never had the same education in the limits of social democracy that Western Europeans had. So this is a necessary part of working class struggle which opens the possibility of more radical stages.Ugh! The country is not a chessboard in your grand schemes! We don't want to wait entire lifetimes for this "process" you hope that will "open" radical "stages".


The CPUSA criticizing Obama now would have no impact whatsoever on the political scene, build a mass movement will.Of course it won't if you simply criticize him. But if you criticize him while building a movement, that's doing something.



I don't personally agree with everything the CPUSA does, and from a real-politick perspective the CP could probaly help Obama more by criticizing him since the main readers of their pro-Obama articles are NewZeal Glenbats and FreeRepublic. Despite that I think their realism in examining where political consciousness in the USA ACTUALLY is, is refreshing on the left. Who gives a damn about the right-wing trolls? The CP should only criticize Obama if it "helps" him avoid being considered a communist?



But I'm NOT the official representative of the CPUSA on Revleft. If you want more details on the internal debate in the CPUSA, I invite you to read through the lively discussions taking place in the comments section of the articles I linked to at PWW. Your welcome to post your criticisms there as well.
I don't see the point.:rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

This is the reality we face. So yes many of the things we are fighting for are social democratic, but the US working class never had the same education in the limits of social democracy that Western Europeans had. So this is a necessary part of working class struggle which opens the possibility of more radical stages.I don't know, wasn't the 1970s enough? And, quite honestly, I'm not especially sure the Western Europeans have moved on to a different plane of class struggle due to this lesson. Though it's nice to know you're going to be honest to the working class and tell them that they ought to go on a wild goose chase in order to gain an education, no doubt similar to the British workers who fell into apathy and disillusionment after Thatcher gave them a no doubt very educational kick in the behind.

[blake 3:17]

I think that the relative backwardness of the working masses in the Unites States can up to a point be attributed to the very real backwardness of its supposed vanguard.


That's what scares me.

[RED DAVE]

I already responded to the main current of the criticisms in my intro to Margolis' article. Basically dogmatic abstractions have no use to concrete situations.Okay. Let's see what you call dogmatic abstractions.


The USA is still a nation where half the working class votes Republican.And in the UK a big chunk of the working class votes Tory.


Under such conditions waging a primarily defensive battle against the ultraright, while also reaching for some social democratic gains is very radical.What you are saying is that it's acceptable for marxists to support a member of the liberal wing of the ruling class.


We still live in an America where Kucinich, who is not even a right-Social Democrat, is considered moonbat crazy left. The tiny Green Party which is considered the far-left alternative, for the most part advocates an economic policy that is simply left-Keynesean regulation.Okay.


This is the reality we face.Okay.


So yes many of the things we are fighting for are social democratic, but the US working class never had the same education in the limits of social democracy that Western Europeans had. So this is a necessary part of working class struggle which opens the possibility of more radical stages.This may well be true. But the issue is not fighting for social democratic reforms. The issue is support for a candidate who represents the interests of the ruling class in one of the two ruling class parties.


The CPUSA criticizing Obama now would have no impact whatsoever on the political sceneIf the CP's criticism would have no impact, why hold back on it.


build a mass movement will.And how do we build a mass movement by supporting the prime candidate of the ruling class?


I don't personally agree with everything the CPUSA doesThe why post their shit? Why not put forth your own point of view.


and from a real-politick perspective the CP could probaly help Obama more by criticizing him since the main readers of their pro-Obama articles are NewZeal Glenbats and FreeRepublic.That's pretty fucking weird: criticize Obama so the radical right won't think that he's a secret leftist.


Despite that I think their realism in examining where political consciousness in the USA ACTUALLY is, is refreshing on the left.Actually, Margolis' analysis is pretentious and wrong at th same time.


But I'm NOT the official representative of the CPUSA on Revleft.Then why post their crap?


If you want more details on the internal debate in the CPUSA, I invite you to read through the lively discussions taking place in the comments section of the articles I linked to at PWW. Your welcome to post your criticisms there as well.I'd rather watch paint dry.

RED DAVE

[ls]

RED DAVE, heiss comes out with a load of crap that "The Republicans are like the BNP", he probably advocates voting Labour to keep the BNP out of constituencies in fact.

Anyway, he thinks that the repubs are like the BNP and the democrats are social-democrats, it's all very strange in my opinion, if we really think the democrats should be supported in elections then why on earth pretend to be revolutionary? The same criticism can very much be levelled against those who stand by the left of and indeed, the left IN the Labour party in the UK, oh and btw most of the UK left that does exactly that.

I really like heiss's quite ignorant observations of the European electoral situation, in many ways one could say most European countries have very right-wing supposed "social-democrats", jesus christ you only have to look at PASOK in Greece to see that these social-democratic fucks will very easily use anti-immigrant legislation to sway the masses. You can go and watch interviews about just what they do and what they want with Afghanistani immigrants for that shit.

[Atlanta]

"In addition to this, the modern revisionists have never given up efforts to find other allies too. And who could these be? It is very natural for them to turn to—and they could not help turn to—their "brothers", fellow traitors—the right-wing social-democrat leaders. For revisionism and social-democracy of today are two manifestations of the same ideology—bourgeois ideology. Social-democracy is the manifestation of bourgeois ideology in the workers movement, while revisionism is the manifestation of bourgeois ideology in the communist movement.

This is the common ideological basis that draws the revisionists closer to and united with the social-democrats and creates the premises for their complete fusion not only ideologically and politically but also organizationally. Therefore it is altogether natural and logical that the attempts of the revisionists to cause the degeneration of the communist parties they direct, into social democratic parties, that their tendency to fuse in with the social-democracy, is being made so very clear nowadays."

Hoxha wrote this in 1964 and i think it fits the modern policies of the CPUSA perfectly....with respect to the fact that unlike European socildems the democrats have always been a capitalist party.

[Intelligitimate]

I think you're all giving heiss93 too much shit. I frankly have to applaud him for being willing to uphold such a line in the face of massive ridicule and undoubtedly the hesitancy he must feel in supporting it.

It really seems to me, that the CPUSA justifies its line with a peculiar interpretation of Lenin's Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. After all, Lenin most certainly did advocate that communists should enter into the Labour Party. Why not for the Democratic Party? In particular, I invite people here to read (or reread, as the case may be) the chapter "Left-wing" Communism in Great Britain (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm). Instead of that stream of idiotic attacks on heiss93, why not try to settle the difference in line in a revolutionary direction?

I think, heiss93, you should pay particular attention to this passage:


Incidentally, as can also be seen from Lloyd George’s speech, both conditions for a successful proletarian revolution are clearly maturing in Great Britain. The errors of the Left Communists are particularly dangerous at present, because certain revolutionaries are not displaying a sufficiently thoughtful, sufficiently attentive, sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently shrewd attitude toward each of these conditions. If we are the party of the revolutionary class, and not merely a revolutionary group, and if we want the masses to follow us (and unless we achieve that, we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags), we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory!); second, we must help the majority of the working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right, i.e., that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is inevitable; third, we must bring nearer the moment when, on the basis of the disappointment of most of the workers in the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once; because if the most astute and solid Lloyd George, that big, not petty, bourgeois, is displaying consternation and is more and more weakening himself (and the bourgeoisie as a whole) by his "friction" with Churchill today and with Asquith tomorrow, how much greater will be the consternation of a Henderson government!

It would seem to me, heiss93, that while the CPUSA has tried to avoid the Left-deviation of complete rejection of all electoral politics, they have somehow skipped the need to convince the working class that only revolution can change things. I would venture say there hasn't been a greater time of disappointment in our own Scheidemanns, yet the CPUSA continuely fails to try to make the workers do something about their own crushed hopes. Why does your party refuse to criticize Obama? If you are Leninists who pay close attention to this particular document, when is the time to criticize Obama? If not now, when he is senting 30,000+ more troops to Afghanistan, when he has failed us on healthcare, when he has failed the Labor Movement that invested $400 million dollars into him, when he is preparing to step up bombings in Pakistan, when he is ready to start destroying Yemen, when he is letting Israel do whatever it wants, when the economy is in the toilet and working people are hurting while the capitalists are being bailed out, when the hell is the time to tell the working class that this fucking Scheidemann and all the other fucking worthless Scheidemanns got to go?

[Sendo]

Saw Sam Webb's name in the title, and didn't read beyond that. Rep me if the CPUSA is the left wing of the Democrats. :ninja:

No, I will not rep you. :P Someone like Dennis Kucinich is in the left wing of the Dems. The CP is the center of the Democrat Party.

I know it is important to push Obama to the left: look at Europe in the 1930s. The left failed on many accounts, disunity in the Spanish popular front, etc. But the BIGGEST failure was the moderation of social democracts in the fact of right wing fascism and paramilitaries. The left will lose morale, the would-be-left-but-still-uneducated will be turned off altogether or try out rightism, and the right wing will keep attacking....physically.

It's happening in America already. A fascist coup could be a few years away. Hell, just take the disgruntled soldiers in Iraq and blame Congress and "Democracy" for all their woes. It could be a mirror of Franco's take over. Even the national guard is in the imperial project and 99.9% of all militias are paleo-conservative or fascist or nativist or supremacist or fundamentalist.

[blake 3:17]

It would seem to me, heiss93, that while the CPUSA has tried to avoid the Left-deviation of complete rejection of all electoral politics, they have somehow skipped the need to convince the working class that only revolution can change things.

So what electoral political sphere did they do any good at?

[Floyce White]

Intelligitimate: "I think you're all giving heiss93 too much shit."

Only a willful hypocrite could post that "dogmatic abstractions have no use to concrete situations" AFTER I posted a concrete situation that rebutted his dogmatic abstraction about Social Security.

Here's my suggestion:

Heiss93 on ignore. Permanently.

[Communist]

Sam Webb is simply not a Leninist, so any Lenin references are not applicable to the current CPUSA. Their leadership is completely adrift in the Democrat worship, to the point where it's become rare to even see them criticize the blue dogs. The few actual communists left in their membership have no power, no voice. I honestly only think it's a matter of time before the name is changed or the party disbands; does anyone doubt that they'd do it in a moment should Obama send the message somehow?
The party has been isolated from the M-L movement for decades, and now it's completely severed ties to it. It is not good at all over there.

[Antiks72]

Has it occured to anyone that CPUSA's endorsement of Obama actually HURTS Obama? Maybe this is a ploy by the CPUSA to sabotage him. Good luck, though.