CPUSA holds 29th national convention

[Lolshevik]

Pre-convention discussion postings: http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-2010/

There are some really solid postings there. So; what do you think: can the CPUSA be taken back by Marxists, or is it a lost cause?




The convention comes in the 90th anniversary year of the Party’s founding. We look back on nine decades of the Party’s deep engagement in the struggles of our working class and people, a proud record of building a broad multiracial, multinational movement for democracy, jobs, equality, peace, and socialism. Among our proudest achievements was initiating the Councils of the Unemployed and spearheading the struggle for public works jobs, a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, unemployment compensation and Social Security in the 1930s. We are as deeply engaged in those life and death struggles today as we were in 1919.

New York City, citadel of finance capital is also our nation’s largest city with the largest concentration of organized workers and national minorities. The CPUSA has joined in the struggles of the city’s working class, from the election of city council-members, Pete Cacchione and Ben Davis to the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers to leading in the organization of the New-York-based Transport Workers Union, The National Maritime Union, the Fur & Leather Workers Union and New York healthcare workers unions.

Our convention will be held at the CPUSA’s magnificent, redesigned “green” headquarters building in the Chelsea district of Manhattan. We will take advantage of the new electronic media, broadcasting parts of the convention to audiences all across the nation.

[Charles Xavier]

What is the result of the convention? I haven't heard anything yet.

[KurtFF8]

Yeah, I've been expecting to hear some news out of this convention, it was quite hyped up by the Left wing of the party as being an opportunity.

[Lolshevik]

Looks like there's been no public announcement of the convention's results yet, aside from the keynote speech (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9383/). Are there any CPers, preferably from the left, Marxist-Leninist wing, who have updates? You'd think the CP would publish the news of the convention immediately following it, considering the extensive (and frankly quite impressive) pre-convention discussion material that has been made available on cpusa.org.

[FSL]

Pre-convention discussion postings: http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-2010/

There are some really solid postings there. So; what do you think: can the CPUSA be taken back by Marxists, or is it a lost cause?

Yes, it can. And either it will be taken back or be reformed to some "Social-democratic Party USA (Barackist).

[KurtFF8]

Apparently CSPAN covered the opening plenary.

[chegitz guevara]

be reformed to some "Social-democratic Party USA (Barackist).

That happened in 1935, seventy five years ago, when Stalin ordered the CPUSA to support Roosevelt. The CPUSA has been supporting the Democrats ever since.

The, so-called, Marxist-Leninist wing simply wants to return to the Gus Hall days, when the CP at least pretended, in public, it didn't have it's lips rimming the Democrats' anus. Webb has changed the form, not the substance, of the CPUSA.

It's better, now, that it's honest about what it is.

[RED DAVE]

The HQ is about 10 minutes walk from my house, and my wife and I drove by yesterday. the presence of the masses eagerly noting the outcome of the proceedings was not noted.

The CPUSA has been a pile of shit since the mid-30s, burning out or disillusioning tens of thousands of good people. Fascinating that all the examples in the OP of CP success were from the 1950s or earlier. Time to bury it like any other turd.

RED DAVE

[Universal Struggle]

they are the most radical social democrats ever... what a joke.

Fucking bourgeoise sam web .

[graymouser]

This is a report from John Case, a member of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (a right split from the CPUSA, outright social democratic) who attended the CPUSA convention. It's from the list Portside, which is distributed by CCDS. Apologies for the wall of text, but the letter is not available to link to. Case is a borderline Keynesian, and has been running the economic discussion for the CPUSA both on a mailing list and in their publications. His views are thoroughly opportunist but reflect the convention's bygone conclusion, the strengthening of the Webb leadership in the CP.


Reflections on the 29th Convention of the CPUSA

By John Case

[Submitted to Portside by author]

Reckoning

The US Communist Party held its 29th Convention this past weekend in New York city on the 90th anniversary of its founding. I last attended a CP convention in 1991, a time of great turmoil throughout all parties and movements that identified with socialist or communist ideals. The collapse of the USSR and the fall of quite a few socialist led governments had persuaded many that the entire socialist experiment had failed, that Marxism was false.

For those who had came to view the vision and theories of Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin, more as religion than contributions to economic and political science; for those who followed dogma over facts; for those who believed political regimes by will alone were capable of leaping over the real laws of economic and social development -- a reckoning was certainly due.

Return of the Specter

But time has not been kind to those forces who believed Bush the First when he proclaimed the dawn of a new world order in love with the vicissitudes of capitalism, and lawless globalization. Despite vigorous attempts to bury the socialist and communist movements -- and social democratic regimes too -- and poison the atmosphere against their ideologies, both organization and ideas on the Left appear to be returning in new, more robust and energetic forms, judging by the new wave of activists and rebels attending the 29th CP convention.

Of course the CP has been around for a long time. But it gives every evidence of shedding old skin and reinvigorating itself. It takes multitudes of working people, of many races and nationalities, men and women, gay and straight, youth and seniors -- together --- to move the mountains of inequity and injustice arising from the past 35 years of financialization of the US economy, and the greatest economic crisis since the 1930's. And the end of this crisis is not yet in sight, which in itself gives rise to new thinking about the nature of capitalism, and its ability to reproduce itself. This convention marked a sharp break with any remaining legacy within the party for narrow or defensive conceptions of party organization. It rejected notions of the path to US socialism other than through the struggles to defeat the ultra right, and raise the wealth and democratic rights of working people, at the expense of monopoly corporate power.

Both old and new defenses from the ideologists of capitalism are being broadly challenged. Robert Rubin's well-managed society whose economy rests in the hands of liberal investment banks has crashed. David Brooks can't decide what to think. The right wing crazies are probably too agitated and medicated to even be allowed to drive a car. In this atmosphere of permanent hot media and ceaseless information streams, no wonder Obama's coolness stood out as a virtue voters thought we might need! Thus, no surprise that Karl Marx, and revised, more democratized conceptions of socialism, are gaining renewed interest as the economic crisis once again confronts society with the grave difficulties of reining in capitalism's terrible instability. Under the right constraints, capitalism has been shown to generate great innovative successes. Yet as each technological revolution overthrows and succeeds a previous order, the conflicts between private anarchy and public stability appear to have grown sharper, to become destabilizing on an ever greater scale. Globalization, left to the management, or non-management might be a better term, of a few large powers and central banks greatly aggravates this conflict on a worldwide scale. Vladimir Lenin, liberated in recent years from the grim Stalin legacy that followed him in Russia, also seems to be making a comeback via diverse and mixed socialist parties and governments from China and Vietnam, to the popular social-democracies in South and Central America.

Emulating the Working Class, Diversity and Equality

The beautiful and diverse composition of the delegates to the CP convention was its most striking feature. Always striving to reflect the character of the US working class in its own composition, the Communist Party has been one of the most integrated political organizations in the United States -- going all the way back to its founding. Of all left organizations in the US, a CP meeting is the most like a union meeting -- there is a century long and deep commitment to strengthening the organized section of the working class. The party focuses much of its work on, and draws much of its strength from, the US labor movement. Working people need strong unity to exercise power, and organizing multi-national, multi-racial cooperation and solidarity are values that the CP in particular has long placed front and center in every political fight. No change there. Except the breadth and depth of the Obama coalition, building on the always deepening diversity of the US population, makes the CP not so unique in this respect. Perhaps it even makes this part of its task easier. Inequality and inequities abound. Yet young people are raised in a much less segregated, and much more diverse, culture than the generations before.

Delegates to the convention appeared steeped in trade union and working class movements. The African American, Latino, Asia and Pacific island, LGBT, Native American, gender, youth and senior, immigrant and naturalized composition genuinely reflected the real colors and shades, cultures, traditions, lifestyles, dialects and languages of this land. Watching them struggle and reach for agreement on an advanced but realizable progressive platform gives one hope about our country, despite the many storms and furies that seek to divide us.

Sam Webb's Report

The convention opening report of Chairman Sam Webb focused on the compelling need to accelerate the democratic upsurge of working people and all progressive forces combating persistent joblessness, which stands near 20% of the workforce when all are counted, and to defeat a resurgent ultra right-wing, racist offensive designed to derail and destroy the entire Obama progressive reform agenda, and Obama's historic presidency as well. Webb targets the 2010 mid-term elections were as the focus of political activity for the next 6 months. Both the ultra-right challenge, and the prospects for deepening reform and kicking up the strength of the coalition that elected Obama, will meet their next big test on November 2, 2010. That's just 160 days from now.

Chairman Webb made strong appeals not to underestimate the important and positive changes in the political environment since the campaign and election of Barack Obama. The broad coalition that gave birth to the Obama phenomenon went to sleep for a while after the election. But if the recent primary elections are any sign, it is waking up again! And none too soon! This movement is taking us all to school in the art of grassroots majority politics.

The Ultra-right, racist danger

The dangers posed by unambiguously racist propaganda emanating from not just the fringes but the leadership of the Republican Party -- were specifically addressed by Executive Vice Chairman Jarvis Tyner. He argued that the so called "tea party" forces' unchecked resorts to vicious slurs, threats of violence, and provocations are well organized and are picking up steam in some areas of the country. The goal being to distract and divide folks who are in near panic over the prolonged economic crisis. Rand Paul, an open opponent of the old Republican establishment, wins the Kentucky Senate primary. Like his father, so-called Libertarian Ron Paul, this "Tea Party" candidate is a front and cover for outright white supremacist organizations, as was revealed in press conferences following the election where Paul criticized the foundations of de-segregation laws. Fox news pundits and the Limbaugh-talk radio, drug-crazed crowd running the new Republican Party are also riding these racist diversions to challenge longstanding civil rights legislation on affirmative action and bars against public segregation, as well as celebrations of the Confederacy.

Tyner, and many speakers, noted the intense anti-immigrant fever that has broken out like an infected sore in Arizona. The state legislature and Governor enacted a draconian law directing state law enforcement to arrest and demand "papers" of anyone they "suspect" is "illegal". A large, multi-racial and multi national movement to "legalize Arizona" has emerged in response, gaining a hat tip from President Obama, and direct pledge of support from the President of Mexico and other international forces. Yet, as convention participants noted, polls currently show two to one support for the law, both in Arizona and across the US, reflecting again both a profound level of panic over jobs, and frustration with failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Highlights

Despite warnings about the danger from the ultra right, the mood was upbeat at the convention. Convention reports noted the results of the recent primary elections that, in the main, repudiated Republican and ultra right campaigns, and asserted that the majority of voters, while divided on some questions, are in support of the Obama reform agenda and in many cases moving toward even more progressive proposals.

Expressions of greeting and solidarity were received from many communist, socialist and workers' parties, including remarks from an official rep of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

Highlights also included reports of many rich experiences of delegates in electoral, grassroots, trade union, health care, May Day, financial reform, and varied community struggles and campaigns. Communists are winning or in serious contention in several races across the country. They are running primarily in the Democratic party. There were strong messages of solidarity from UE Republic Windows, victorious sit-down strikers in Chicago, and from organizers and leaders in the immigrants rights movement, and from the many moving and emotional song, letter and speech tributes, from many nations, at the Saturday evening international solidarity and 90th anniversary celebration.

Reports on the struggle for peace focused on accelerating and advancing the withdrawal from Iraq, returning to regional diplomacy over war in Afghanistan, and addressing the urgent needs to implement the two state solution in Israel-Palestine. The world wide improvement in unity in preventing the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction needs to be buttressed with legislation.

Much attention was paid to building and expanding online media initiatives and responding to increased demands for flexibility in tactics.

Unity

Sometimes in reports on political conventions, especially those on the Left, there is a tendency to overstate, or perhaps mis-characterize the overall impression of unity. Of course all political parties can only move decisively forward on those matters where there is the broadest agreement. There is indeed broad CP unity on strengthening the democratic upsurge behind a reform agenda that is friendly to that of the president. But the convention was not a boring recitation of people rising to associate themselves with the remarks of the chairman. There are very diverse, and quite different, conceptions of how socialism, or mixed market - socialism, or the transition to socialism, is developing in the United States, and around the world.

Sam Webb, Jarvis Tyner and Roberta Wood were re-elected as officers, Chair, Exec Vice-Chair and Secretary-Treasury, respectively.

The meeting opened singing "This land is your land", and closed on the "International".

How come not bigger?

It's an odd and somewhat uneasy juxtaposition of thoughts and feelings that witnesses the truly beautiful composition and spirit of the delegates to this CP convention alongside the small size of the Communist Party --- which has not enjoyed a strong base of strength since the beginning of the McCarthy repression in the late 1940's and the 1950's.

I keep asking -- how come? How come such a lively outfit as this crowd does not have 20,000, or 100,000 members? The same question could be asked about the organized Left in general. But I think when its answered for the CP, it will be similar to the answer for the Left too. The most important part of the answer is rejecting all political doubts about the importance of the democratic struggle for workers, and not picturing the path to socialism as in any way separate from the tasks of this struggle. The CP focus on labor and its explicit class orientation has always been the essence of its survival strategy even in the darkest times. And now --now that the time for an offensive is at hand --- the class base and focus is helping it make the necessary adjustments in political program, strategy and tactics. This convention got that done! Which should alone enable it to grow its membership if folks do as they have pledged!

The name "Communist"

Beyond that, while it did not come up on the agenda, or in speeches, one of the elephants in the room --not far from my own mind, at least -- is the linkage between the name "Communist" and the failed USSR, so identified with it. To ask American workers to find their way through all of cold war history in order to help work with and lead the class and democratic fight that the delegates to the CP convention committed themselves to -- is asking too much, in this writer's opinion. However, even if that association were to fade with time and be overtaken by the record of sound, sober, serious and solid leadership in this struggle before us, its hard to picture a large workers party in the US calling itself "Communist". Why? Because such a party is tasked in this era chiefly with fully exhausting the democratic struggle to raise workers incomes and rights under capitalism. Further, even strategically such a party must be willing and able to participate in and help lead coalitions capable of running a sustained mixed -- part capitalist, part socialist --- economy for a likely lengthy transition period. Naming this party "Communist" before such time as the tasks of constructing a society reflecting the communist ideal are fully prepared, is premature in a mass context, at least in the US. However, since all political obstacles to full participation in this great democratic upheaval of our time have been set aside, I am sure this one too will in due course be set aside if it remains a block to the growth that the CP's program and broad approach most definitely deserves. I recommend its serious consideration by all.

Single slate elections

The other elephant in the room, from this writers point of view, is the single slate method of electing leadership. To most Americans familiar with trade unions or other political parties, it would seem strange. Most of the latter have a more "federal" style of electing leadership. That is, geographical and other established party or union organizational components are each given some proportion of seats on the leading committees. Delegates to conventions of more federal organizations do not vote on leading committees as a whole, but by district, state or other type of sector. Officers are typically elected at large, and with a broader mandate than members of leading committees. The CP in the US does it differently, due to three factors. First, preserving a balanced class, racial, national, gender, youth and cultural composition in leadership has always been a high priority -- a priority that can sometimes be sacrificed to regional or other sectarian tendencies. Second, the repressions against the CP for years made it very difficult to operate as other organizations. And a fully open or transparent process still poses some risks -- although these are declining in the current period --- of retaliation from members' employers or other forces meaning harm. Third, the slate method arguably constructs a more harmonious leading collective able to perform multiple tasks, both regional and national, with better coordination. In the single slate election a presiding committee, elected by the delegates, prepares a proposal for the entire incoming national leadership, subject to amendment by the convention.

So, there is cause to proceed carefully and in a manner that does not provoke unnecessary division. But it is hard to see the single slate method adaptable to a larger party without risking bureaucratic distortions. Yes --- becoming more "federal" might weaken collectivity and give more ground to factions. But dealing with factions, and building unity, is a never-ending task in all mass organizations. Further, single slate methods can weaken individual leadership accountability to members. Lastly, I don't see the single slate method adapting easily to a party much more focused on elections and electability, as a mass party must be.

Si Se Puede!!

I will no doubt be accused of quibbling about less important matters by some, or exposing liberal ideological tendencies by others. But I remain convinced these are important quibbles, weighty elephants indeed!

Nonetheless, it is clear from this convention that these challenges will be addressed in order, and constructively. These delegates are serious, and practical. They elected officers completely committed to the democratic tasks before working people. They are bowing to no authority but reason and necessity. The enthusiasm, the si se puede!! spirit, the stubborn determination and grit of the delegates and leaders gathered in New York for the 29th Convention of the CPUSA do not look like folks who will be stopped, or driven in any cultish or sectarian direction. They have the main tasks down! And they seem ready to lay it all on the line to move the working class and popular democratic movement forward, for peace, and a higher standard of living. From this convention, I predict they will not be blocked by any trees fallen across the road that stand in the way!

As Robert Frost wrote:

"...And yet [Nature] knows obstruction is in vain: We will not be put off the final goal We have it hidden in us to attain, Not though we have to seize earth by the pole And, tired of aimless circling in one place, Steer straight off after something into space."

...and across the Universe

yes we can! si se puede!

[gorillafuck]

The, so-called, Marxist-Leninist wing simply wants to return to the Gus Hall days, when the CP at least pretended, in public, it didn't have it's lips rimming the Democrats' anus..
That's some poetic language, right there.

There's not going to be some big take back of the CPUSA by "authentic Marxist-Leninists", as chegitz said they've been supporting the dems for quite some time. Sam Webb didn't suddenly make the party social democrats. They're a shit party and it's best to ignore them and for anyone who's actually radical to leave the party now.

[Honggweilo]

http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-on-criticizing-obama/


This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA's 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. CPUSA.org takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this article or other articles in the pre-convention discussion. All contributions must meet the guidelines for discussion. To read other contributions to this discussion, visit the site of the Pre-Convention Discussion period. All contributions to the discussion should be sent to [email protected] for selection not to the individual venues.For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can email [email protected]

Here is just a quick comment on the issue of criticisms of Obama from the left.
The ultra-left went into the 2008 election cycle with the a priori, un historical and un dialectical idea that there is "not a dimes worth of difference" between the two major bourgeois parties. They drew from this the conclusion that the only use that should be made of electoral politics is as a platform to denounce the whole capitalist system. If there is not "a dime's worth of difference" it really does not matter if a vote for a protest candidate lets in the Republican, because the Democrat is just as bad.
This is wrong because even though both the Democratic and Republican parties support capitalism, they support different policies within capitalism. The Democratic position is usually better for the working class and for the left, because the Democrats are more likely to make concessions to labor and other mass constituencies, and because the Republicans are more likely to use repression against labor and the left. This is a matter of degree, of course, but it is important. So the CPUSA has pushed the vote for Democratic candidates, not because we have the illusion that they will bring us socialism, nor because we have actually given up on socialism, but because socialism is not an immediately achievable goal and voting for the Democrats is likely to produce a better situation from which to push the struggle forward, eventually putting socialism on the agenda.

So to those on the left who say "we told you so" about Obama and the expanded Democratic majority, we can reply "and so you think that McCain and the Republicans would have been better?".

But criticism of Obama for specific policy decisions, especially from people who are not floating around in the Cloud Cuckoo-Land of the ultra left, but rather are intensely engaged in the mass struggle, is another matter. In many cases when Obama makes rightward-tending decisions, whether they are concessions to pressure or reflect his own basic views, they are almost never attributable to the pressure of mass public opinion. The American people as a whole are not in favor of more U.S. involvement in wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They do not support the U.S. blockade of Cuba. They want financial help for working people, not crooked financiers. The public opinion polls bear this out. An exception might be the health care debate in which Obama, instead of coming up with a clear program and using his awesome communications skills (lol? sarcasm? i cant tell) to explain it to the American people, conceded the leadership to Congress, which is sort of like dumping the thing into a cage full of rabid squirrels. The result is a frustrating mess which has a lot of people confused who would otherwise support progressive reform. This has made it possible for the Republican right to step in with their vicious nonsense about "death panels" and the rest.
When Obama makes concessions to reactionary vested interests, he undermines "democratic coalition" of which others have written. He opens the door to a return to power of the G.O.P. For such things, it is absolutely essential that we forcefully criticise the Obama administration's policies.
In the wake of the 2008 elections, some comrades were talking about Obama in an excessively adulatory tone. I hope we have got past this and now can return to basing our judgments, statements and positions on a scientific analysis of the state of the class struggle, defending or criticizing the administration as the situation requires.
lol the rabid childish rant about the "ultra-leftists" clearly indicates dissent at the congres. The historicly bankrupt fallacy saying the democrats will bring socialism on the agenda is hilarious. Was Sam Webb so inspired by provocative populism when he visit Glenn Beck that he decided to use petty insults to official documents? I find this pretty sad.

I still believe there are alot of commited party members, also from the Gus Hall period, who are genuine marxist active in the labour movement and class-struggle. But its really hard to provide an alternative with the balant reformism and double standards of the national leadership on "international and national" questions and prospect on the road to socialism. I'm not someone who calls for the allienation of the CP, but it seems to allienating itself. The Keynesian crap is more and more portrayed as an endgoal while they seem to hold a double standard when i comes to supporting the KKE in Greece against a government that is even more "left-wing" then the obama administration.

[Honggweilo]

in their pre-convention documents, there are still some genuine marxist voiced to be heard though, very critical of the obama tailing, and most of them looking toward the Greek KKE as an example. Some even go as far a supporting the Nepalese revolution

http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-zionism-is-a-form-of-racism/
http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-a-time-to-grow/
http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-for-a-cpusa-that-honors-the-soviet-experience/
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9328/
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9262/

i would like to point out this one


There's no avoiding an ideological struggle in our Party over twentieth-century socialism.
This convention must not accept such opportunistic and evasive formulations as "In some ways we were prisoners of the experience of Russia in 1917," ("Democracy Matters," interview with Sam Webb in Political Affairs, 2004)
The CPUSA's partisan view of the Soviet Union (1917-1991) is rooted neither in nostalgia nor obsession, nor unthinking habit. It is a commitment to the truth and to principle. We were not "prisoners" of anything. Our steadfastness will have practical implications for the future.
The class struggle is sharpening. Working people will be entering our movement. Most people join Communist Parties because they admire the people in our parties who are waging, and often leading struggles.
Sooner or later, if we wish to hold new people, we must offer a convincing explanation of the debacles of 1989-91. If we don't, our ideological adversaries — bourgeois and right wing social democrats — certainly will. They will try to confuse them by means of their defamatory pseudo-explanations.
Some Party documents imply - incorrectly — that our Party and the world movement haven't a clue about what caused the downfall of socialism in Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1989-91
To its credit International Publishers has published three fine books on the subject (Perestroika: Its Rise and Fall; Heroic Struggle, Bitter Defeat; and Socialism Betrayed) Although these books are treated with contempt by reformist elements in our leadership, they have been translated into dozens of languages by Communists around the world who hold these books in high esteem.
Several Parties including notably the Greek Communist Party have held conference after conference of Marxist scholars to arrive at a satisfactory historical materialist explanation of the 1989-91 calamities. Reflecting more than a decade of collective work, their recent Theses on Socialism (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd) merit careful study by all.
In the former lands of socialism, the misery inflicted by gangster capitalism has caused tens of millions people to think again. Not many months ago, it was evident in the spate of articles on occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, that even conservative observers concede that the working people of most lands in Eastern Europe and the USSR, by large majorities, believe their lives were better under socialism. In the most extreme case, capitalist Russia, the re-imposition of capitalism has caused a demographic collapse
Communists struggle over historical memory. History was a terrain for ideological struggle in Lenin's time too. He defended the Paris Commune (1871) and generalized its political lessons in State and Revolution. Before him, Marx too was a fierce partisan of the Paris Commune. Both, of course, acknowledged and studied the mistakes that contributed to its downfall.
Twenty-century socialism is not a matter of ancient history. It is alive in such countries as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Korea in all their diversity. Class solidarity with these existing socialist states, especially those most threatened by US imperialism, is the absolute duty of all US Communists.
This convention must reject any opportunistic distancing of the CPUSA from the Soviet experience. We are not embarrassed that we defended it when it was a living reality. We defend its memory now. We proudly affirm that Soviet socialism was the noblest and greatest large-scale experiment in "democracy for the many," working -class democracy, in the 20th century.
This convention must insist that all Party leaders and Party publications should speak and write in that partisan spirit.
We, like the entire world, recognize and honor the monumental struggles and sacrifices of the Soviet people in the defeat and vanquishing of the Nazi/fascists who invaded the land of Socialism, and led to the deaths of 25 millions and suffering of an entire population. Such selflessness has never been witnessed in all the history of the world, and will forever be an inspiration to the working people in the world as we continue to fight for socialism on the road to Communism! We are, after all, the Communist Party.




Angelo DiAngelo
Ed Wlody
Kevin Keating

[Honggweilo]

also this one is right on the spot


Tailing the Democrats and Forsaking Struggle

By Thomas Kenny (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/author/view/1944)
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/2941-100x100.jpg

Why was the CPUSA leadership estimate of the Obama Administration so wrong?

The November 2008 presidential election was a democratic milestone in US politics. The joy and pride of people of color and tens of millions of others in the election victory of a Black person in a country disfigured by centuries of racism has been altogether legitimate.

However, such sentiments are not a Marxist-Leninist, all-sided, scientific analysis of the class substance of the new Obama Administration. Obama’s pro-corporate and pro-imperialist policies have disappointed and angered working people, particularly working people of color.

Tailism means to accept the political and ideological leadership of the class enemy, monopoly capital. Marxism-Leninism allows for multi-class alliances. But, the "unity against the ultra right" formulation, correct in, say, a fight against fascism, is being wrongly applied by the CPUSA. The line incorrectly and mechanically equates the "ultra right" with the Republican Party. This is a "party label" analysis, not a class analysis.

Monopoly capital owns both the Republican and the Democratic parties. This is not to deny that there are differences (often important ones) in the two parties’ social base, leading to differences in party policy (especially domestic) which progressive forces are obliged to take advantage of.

Misrepresenting the views of Communist leaders from George Dimitrov to George Meyers, tailism argues that, if Republicans are the main enemy, the CPUSA must adopt the same political positions as its “allies” -- Obama and the Democrats. This has rationalized CPUSA rightward shifts, most notably on health care reform, but many other issues too.

At root, the “Tail Obama and the Democrats” policy is opportunism. It forsakes struggle. It exempts the CPUSA from the struggle for political independence, deferring it endlessly until "the next stage." The next deferral being planned will be accomplished by “The Party Program in Transition,” which contends that we are between two stages; hence we have to keep open the option of tailing Obama and the Democrats.

Tailism is a hardy and adaptable germ. This convention's spotlight on the modest AFL-CIO Jobs Program is a retreat. Arguably, tailism’s supporters reckon that, for now, tailing the AFL-CIO is more palatable than tailing Obama, now barely defensible.

The tailist policy supposedly has a "non-sectarian" or "broad" nature. It is the opposite -- extremely sectarian. It isolates us from our natural and best allies among the Left, and nowadays even in the Center.

CPUSA tailism originated before the Obama campaign. In 2004 and 2006, the Party called for support of the Democrats as a way of ending the Iraq war. In 2004 and 2006 the Democrats boosted their numbers in Congress. In 2008 they captured control of Congress and the White House. But the Iraq War rages on.

Luckily for tailism, in 2008, at the moment that Congressional Democrats proved useless in ending the war, along came Obama who became the next justification for CPUSA tailism. But this shift required portraying Obama as something far more wonderful than what he really is: a corporate Democrat.
The hyperbole began. A chimerical “Obama Movement" was claimed to exist. When his right-wing Cabinet appointments were made, we heard, "Don't go bananas,” such appointments need not imply future policy direction. He became the leader of the people’s movements, a "friend." Early 2009 was the “springtime of possibility." He was "brilliant," a “transformational” politician. We were coming "out of the crisis," into “an era of democratic reform.” We were advised to attend the Inaugural festivities. Some Party leaders actually predicted that Obama would shift left after the Inauguration. In Illinois, comrades were rebuked for referring to Obama as "a bourgeois politician.” A mountain of evidence that Obama, not McCain, was the main recipient of Wall Street donations was dismissed.

Counterevidence was scoffed at: the re-authorization of the blockade of Cuba; the slowdown of withdrawal from Iraq; multiplication of savage drone attacks on villagers in Pakistan and Afghanistan; betrayal of the Palestinians; backsliding on pledges to close Guantanamo; complicity in the Honduras coup; the Afghan escalation; bailouts for bankers but not Black homeowners facing foreclosure and eviction; little stomach for reining in Wall Street; the record-breaking war budget; the travesty in Copenhagen on climate change; and the sellout of health care reform to private insurers.

Eventually, facts overwhelmed the line. A climb down began, including "Ragged Process," and “Observations One Year In.” Though conceding analytical errors, the climb down showed no understanding of why the error came about. Worse, supporters of tailism refused to draw the inescapable conclusion: that the basic estimate was wrong and the tailist policy must be scrapped.

It is time for self-criticism by tailism’s champions. To answer the question posed above: the main reason the Party leadership’s estimate of this Administration was so wrong was that it was not a Marxist-Leninist, class analysis, which would have correctly anticipated what has actually happened.

Communist parties carrying out a class analysis got it right. Our line on Obama is rejected by almost the whole world Communist movement. Read the speeches at the New Delhi meeting in November 2009 (www.solidnet.org (http://www.solidnet.org)).

The remedy? This convention must acknowledge the Party’s error and repudiate the tailist policy. We must revert to the Marxist-Leninist view, that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is a monopoly-ruled party. We should support Obama and the Congressional Democrats only when they fight corporate and military interests. We should pressure them to do so. We must oppose them when they join the Republicans and support such interests.

Evident since 2000, the CPUSA drift away from Marxist-Leninist principles set the stage for this blunder. At the 2005 CPUSA convention, an ideological retreat that readied the ground for the Tail Obama policy was the de facto dropping of Lenin’s principle of the vanguard party’s struggle for leadership of the mass movements. The incoming NB and NC should convene a Special Ideological Conference on Building Political Independence in all its forms, taking into account our party’s rich history of struggle toward this end.

There are no shortcuts to the political independence of the US working class, trapped in the two-party system of US monopoly capital. Accordingly, we must build long-term alliances in the first place with the Left, with independents, with all progressive, anti-monopoly movements, parties, organizations, and candidates, especially those with a base in the trade unions and among the nationally oppressed. We should also mount, where it makes sense, Communist candidacies to project the most advanced solutions.

“Tail Obama and the Democrats” is the most obvious expression of the opportunism of the present CPUSA line. Its premise is false. Finance capital is backing Obama on most key issues: Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Honduras, Colombia, health care, taxation, torture, environment, TARP, and the stimulus. Obama is largely backing the agenda of finance capital, not our agenda.

Tailism harms the mass movements, depriving them of leadership. It harms us: why join the CPUSA to support corporate Democrats? Tailism is a prime cause of organizational problems -- dwindling membership (reportedly down from 2500 at the last convention to about 1000 now) and resulting chronic financial crisis.

Either we end the tailism and correct the analysis that gave rise to it, or we decline further.

[graymouser]

Deconditioned Reflex, I followed the pre-convention discussion pretty closely and to be honest I think Chegitz's summary of the CPUSA left wing is pretty close to right on. They are looking for a return to the Gus Hall era, when the CPUSA stopped short of coming out and saying they were reformist but remained a tail for the Democrats in every thing they did. What the Webb leadership has done is to eliminate the pretense, now that the post Cold War climate is more favorable for outright tailism. My personal suspicion is that they intend to liquidate the party at some point in the not-so-distant future and live off of its assets (basically what the CP in Britain did).

[Honggweilo]

Deconditioned Reflex, I followed the pre-convention discussion pretty closely and to be honest I think Chegitz's summary of the CPUSA left wing is pretty close to right on. They are looking for a return to the Gus Hall era, when the CPUSA stopped short of coming out and saying they were reformist but remained a tail for the Democrats in every thing they did. What the Webb leadership has done is to eliminate the pretense, now that the post Cold War climate is more favorable for outright tailism. My personal suspicion is that they intend to liquidate the party at some point in the not-so-distant future and live off of its assets (basically what the CP in Britain did).

You cant generalize everyone as wanting to keep on the tailist line, even the one during the 90's under gus hall, when they openly reject it as urging for a return to leninism, mass-work openly as communists without endorsing the democratic party (as made clear in the last article). I see these criticisms on social-democratic dismanteling and reformism as very similar to period leading up to the situation in the netherlands in the 80's (the CPN-VCN split, the VCN becoming the NCPN after the original CP disolved and disgrunted members fused), Greece in the 90's (Synaspismos-KKE split) and the Spain in the 80's (PCE-PCPE split).

[Kassad]

As much as a lot of people wish Communist Party USA could return to the days where they were at least psuedo-revolutionary, it is very unlikely to happen when articles are released from the party stating things along the lines of "we take it as a compliment to hear we're being mixed up with the Democrats." Authentic Marxist-Leninist parties (like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!)) have taken up the banner of struggle and in my opinion, all that is needed is to cast Communist Party USA to where it belongs: the dustbin of history.

[graymouser]

You cant generalize everyone as wanting to keep on the tailist line, even the one during the 90's under gus hall, when they openly reject it as urging for a return to leninism, mass-work openly as communists without endorsing the democratic party (as made clear in the last article). I see these criticisms on social-democratic dismanteling and reformism as very similar to period leading up to the situation in the netherlands in the 80's (the CPN-VCN split, the VCN becoming the NCPN after the original CP disolved and disgrunted members fused), Greece in the 90's (Synaspismos-KKE split) and the Spain in the 80's (PCE-PCPE split).
Well, you're right that it's uneven, but knowing who's involved in this, any split would have to be oriented toward a return to the Hall years. Even Kenny, who's one of the more consistent people on this (and with a relatively high profile) writes:


The remedy? This convention must acknowledge the Party’s error and repudiate the tailist policy. We must revert to the Marxist-Leninist view, that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is a monopoly-ruled party. We should support Obama and the Congressional Democrats only when they fight corporate and military interests. We should pressure them to do so. We must oppose them when they join the Republicans and support such interests.It isn't that the left wing is opposing the overall fact that the CPUSA has been oriented to the Democratic Party since 1936, but rather the idea that they should "pressure" them and on some things oppose them. This should not be confused with independence, or even steps toward independence, but rather for a renewal of the relationship where the CPUSA acted at least minimally as a pressure group. As it stands they have had a different role, basically pushing erstwhile "left" supporters of Obama back into rigid formation behind the Democrats. There are contradictory ideas among the CPUSA left, but the ones I know and whose postings I've been reading really do want the Hall party back.

[Revy]

edited out per mod request - THC

WTF? Seriously, shut up. I'd rather get "PC" than see RevLeft have inappropriate crap like this posted. This isn't 4chan or Xbox Live.

[Communist]

Their favorite meal is...

What is this garbage? Post is trashed.

If anyone wants to take it further, fine by me, but I issue a verbal warning.

.

[The Red Next Door]

WTF? Seriously, shut up. I'd rather get "PC" than see RevLeft have inappropriate crap like this posted. This isn't 4chan or Xbox Live.

I am sorry for being so blunt and excuse my language, but it is annoying that you called yourself, a communist party, a party that fight for the proletariat. but you suck up to a traitorous party like the Democrats.

Does anyone understand this feeling?

[Wanted Man]

But its really hard to provide an alternative with the balant reformism and double standards of the national leadership on "international and national" questions and prospect on the road to socialism. I'm not someone who calls for the allienation of the CP, but it seems to allienating itself. The Keynesian crap is more and more portrayed as an endgoal while they seem to hold a double standard when i comes to supporting the KKE in Greece against a government that is even more "left-wing" then the obama administration.

Question about this reformist wing: how do they see the future of the CPUSA? Is it imaginable that they will seek to liquidate the party, or is their intention to continue going along as usual, without any significant changes?

[mikelepore]

It's disappointing to see others criticize the CPUSA only for being "social democrats" (reformers). Their serious flaw was to admire and unconditionally defend the Moscow regime, one of the most repressive states in modern history. They way the CP has always belittled basic human freedom as "nothing but a bourgeois idea", and has had no problem conferring the name "socialism" on despotism, if I were going to write a criticism of them I would have to be too busy covering that aspect exclusively. I wouldn't have any time to worry about their reformism, the least of their defects.

[graymouser]

It's disappointing to see others criticize the CPUSA only for being "social democrats" (reformers). Their serious flaw was to admire and unconditionally defend the Moscow regime, one of the most repressive states in modern history. They way the CP has always belittled basic human freedom as "nothing but a bourgeois idea", and has had no problem conferring the name "socialism" on despotism, if I were going to write a criticism of them I would have to be too busy covering that aspect exclusively. I wouldn't have any time to worry about their reformism, the least of their defects.
This is actually something that's a going issue in the CPUSA faction fights - the right wing has a tendency to move itself further from its history with the USSR, attacking Stalin quite harshly and backing off from the designation of the party as "Marxist-Leninist." The erstwhile left wing meanwhile is more enthusiastic in its identification with the old USSR. Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny are two of the more prominent members of this wing; they collaborated on a book about the decline of the Soviet Union called Socialism Betrayed that has conveniently become out of print in the meantime. And if you read mltoday.com (which is pretty much the main site for the CP left wing) versus say paeditorsblog.blogspot.com (a blog run by the editors of Political Affairs, which used to be a magazine but is now just a website) you'll find that this difference in identification runs pretty clearly through the wings of the party.

As far as what we need to criticize the CPUSA about? Well, let me be honest - I do think that the popular frontism is the main problem. The CP no longer defends Moscow. Instead they work in the union bureaucracy and the larger social movements, where their role is to keep activists within the Democratic Party fold. I remember clearly during the 2004 election campaign a letter from Sam Webb excoriating leftists for not being sufficiently enthused about John Kerry - and of course they were riding the tide of Obama in 2008. In real social movements the CPUSA are one of the stumbling blocks keeping the radicalizing layers (including workers) tied to the Democratic Party and that has to be criticized.

[graymouser]

Question about this reformist wing: how do they see the future of the CPUSA? Is it imaginable that they will seek to liquidate the party, or is their intention to continue going along as usual, without any significant changes?
Well, I think there are a number of dimensions to that question. First, the CPUSA has simply hemorrhaged members in the last five years and isn't really recruiting to make it up. Second, the current leadership has worked to bridge the gap between the CP and CCDS, seeing the 1991 split as something of a mistake. For instance John Case, who wrote the convention report I posted up thread, does several CP-related projects but is a CCDS member. Third, the party has made a number of sharp expenses cuts in the recent past, taking a number of party workers off the payroll and basically ceasing its print operations. Despite this, clubs no longer remit dues to the national party.

Logic would dictate one of two courses. Either the CP will merge with CCDS (probably getting rid of "communist" from the name) or it will be rolled into a foundation with a name like "People Before Profit" that gives salaries to whoever is left working for the party.

[chegitz guevara]

It's disappointing to see others criticize the CPUSA only for being "social democrats" (reformers). Their serious flaw was to admire and unconditionally defend the Moscow regime, one of the most repressive states in modern history. They way the CP has always belittled basic human freedom as "nothing but a bourgeois idea", and has had no problem conferring the name "socialism" on despotism, if I were going to write a criticism of them I would have to be too busy covering that aspect exclusively. I wouldn't have any time to worry about their reformism, the least of their defects.

Some of us see supporting capitalism as worse than supporting Stalinism.

[DaringMehring]

The CP is getting maligned out of all proportion here.

It is true that the relationship with the Democrats crosses the line, in that the CP fails to develop its own independent program and spends its effort pushing Obama and the Democrats out of all proportion to their worth. It is also true that CP rhetoric says that positive reforms are more than just valuable in themselves, that they are actual steps towards socialism. There is some truth in this idea but it is also very dangerous and again the CP oversteps.

However --- to the CP's credit, they aim themselves at the actual point of political activity of most of the politically active masses. The labor movement, the peace movement, etc. all orient themselves around what they can get Democrats to do. By entering that arena, the CP struggles along with them. The CP wishes the labor movement were more radical, but engagement, not wishing, is real politics.

Of course, because many CP members are not open communists, the value of this to the Party is not always what it should be.

However, the Party has many people who have worked in all kinds of groups agitating for progressive change. There are trade unionists and minority-rights activists. Their work and its value cannot be dismissed, and it is because of the CPs so-called reformist position that they do this work.

[heiss93]

A recent conflict in the CP-
http://willamettereds.blogspot.com/2010/03/cpusa-national-board-criticizes-authors.html

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The CP is getting maligned out of all proportion here.

It is true that the relationship with the Democrats crosses the line, in that the CP fails to develop its own independent program and spends its effort pushing Obama and the Democrats out of all proportion to their worth. It is also true that CP rhetoric says that positive reforms are more than just valuable in themselves, that they are actual steps towards socialism. There is some truth in this idea but it is also very dangerous and again the CP oversteps.

However --- to the CP's credit, they aim themselves at the actual point of political activity of most of the politically active masses. The labor movement, the peace movement, etc. all orient themselves around what they can get Democrats to do. By entering that arena, the CP struggles along with them. The CP wishes the labor movement were more radical, but engagement, not wishing, is real politics.

How can the CPUSA "get the Democrats to do" anything? It's extremely patronizing and alienating to ask what the labor movement and peace movement can make the Democrats do; it needs to be asked what the labor movement and peace movement can do themselves.

Ever since the CPUSA became subservient to Moscow, they have had no interest in supporting the working class struggle against capital. The CPUSA is not at all visible in the labor movement or the peace movement. Not now, not since the 1920s! Since the big strikes of 1934 in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, it has been independent minded anti-stalinists who have led the militant class struggle in the US while the Stalinists consistently sell out the working class. Even today, where is the CPUSA engaging the masses around the anti-war movement? What labor battles are the CPUSA engaged in? Give me one example.


Of course, because many CP members are not open communists, the value of this to the Party is not always what it should be.They're not open communists because the CPUSA is more of a secret society of Liberal-minded reformists than a party of the masses.


However, the Party has many people who have worked in all kinds of groups agitating for progressive change. There are trade unionists and minority-rights activists. Their work and its value cannot be dismissed, and it is because of the CPs so-called reformist position that they do this work.Progressive change doesn't come from Democrats (or any capitalist politicians.)

[RED DAVE]

The CP is getting maligned out of all proportion here.It's practically impossible to malign the CPUSA too much.


It is true that the relationship with the Democrats crosses the lineWhat you are saying that an alleged revolutionary organization has crossed the class line and is supporting the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but ... .


in that the CP fails to develop its own independent program and spends its effort pushing Obama and the Democrats out of all proportion to their worth.This is a vast understatement. As others have said, the CPUSA is in no position to get behind the Democrats. Truth is, the Democrats, to the extent that they notice the CPUSA at all, are behind it with their foot up the CP's ass. The CPUSA has no independent program. In fact, it has no real independent existence at all. Its program relates to the Democrats; its actions are in relation to the Democrats. Draw your own conclusions.


It is also true that CP rhetoric says that positive reforms are more than just valuable in themselves, that they are actual steps towards socialism.That's the same bullshit that every social democrat has spout for over 100 years. Can you spell B-e-r-n-s-t-e-i-n?


There is some truth in this ideaYes there is, as embodied in such concepts as a transitional program, but the CPUSA's notions have nothing to do with this. They constitute liberalism and little else.


but it is also very dangerous and again the CP oversteps.That's like saying Obama has overstepped himself in Iraq and Afghanistan.


However --- to the CP's credit, they aim themselves at the actual point of political activity of most of the politically active masses.What's going on in the Democratic Party is scarcely political activity. There is no enhancement of consciousness, no learning, no growth, but the DP and the labor bureaucracy are using the masses for their own purposes. The CPUSA, if it were a revolutionary organization, instead of a pathetic bunch of liberals, would be exposing this activity. But they've been doing this since 1936. Why should they change now?


The labor movement, the peace movement, etc. all orient themselves around what they can get Democrats to do.And thereby guarantee that their programs will be ignored and they will be exploited by a faction of the ruling class.


By entering that arena, the CP struggles along with them.No it doesn't. When you jump into a cesspool, you drown in shit. There is no way to organize independently within the DP.


The CP wishes the labor movement were more radical, but engagement, not wishing, is real politics.Engagement of the working class is done in the workplace and in the mass movements, to the extent they exist, not in the Democratic Party.

One movement after another has committed political suicide going into the DP to use it, take it over, bore from within, etc. They're all gone. The DP is riding high, controlling the Presidency and the Congress. Draw your own conclusion.


Of course, because many CP members are not open communists, the value of this to the Party is not always what it should be.There is no value to it. The CPUSA is a bunch of liberals or, at best, petit-bourgeois radicals. They are doing exactly what you would expect such people to do: commit political suicide in the DP.


However, the Party has many people who have worked in all kinds of groups agitating for progressive change. There are trade unionists and minority-rights activists. Their work and its value cannot be dismissed, and it is because of the CPs so-called reformist position that they do this work.Even if there are some good people in the CPUSA, you have to ask: what the fuck are they doing in one of the worst political groups in the USA? Either they're naive or cynical. The only political advice to give people in that shit hole is: GET OUT!

RED DAVE

[Zoster]

I've met a few people on the 'Left'-wing of the CPUSA. They really don't strike me as all that revolutionary, though I can't tell if they represent the general left-wing trend in the party or not. I would guess pretty much all of them have various Rightist-deviations, or they would have never stayed in the CPUSA to begin with.

[Proletarian Ultra]

What you are saying that an alleged revolutionary organization has crossed the class line and is supporting the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but ... .

Is CPUSA even allegedly revolutionary? I thought they dropped that in the 30s.

[RED DAVE]

Is CPUSA even allegedly revolutionary? I thought they dropped that in the 30s.Since they're fundamentally opportunists, they play all sides against the middle. They can appear to take any stance that serves them at the moment. In the early 60s, for instance, when I first came in contact with the CP youth, they managed to simultaneously use revolutionary rhetoric and support liberal Democrats.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

Is CPUSA even allegedly revolutionary? I thought they dropped that in the 30s.
No, rhetorically they still say they are revolutionary, but they first redefine "revolution" to an almost meaningless phrase. Sam Webb wrote a pamphlet in 2005 called "Reflections on Socialism" (the entire text is at the CP website) that goes into considerable detail about this, although basically his view of a revolution is of a series of changes that is a better description of reformism.

As far as "maligning" the ultra-opportunist CPUSA, the politics they and a handful of others (CCDS, DSA) are not primarily doing worthwhile activism but focus on keeping the left - the social movement and labor activists - chained to the Democrats. The CPUSA is particularly big on this, with the focus on supporting Obama having let bedrock positions like single-payer go by the wayside.

[Salyut]

A recent conflict in the CP-
http://willamettereds.blogspot.com/2010/03/cpusa-national-board-criticizes-authors.html

This is hilarious. :laugh:

[chegitz guevara]

No, rhetorically they still say they are revolutionary, but they first redefine "revolution" to an almost meaningless phrase.

Much like the Socialist Party's right wing. When people like Howie Hawkins, David McReynolds, and Billy Wharton call themselves revolutionaries, it's time to look for a new label. It's cuz the damned Democrats took "progressive" from them. :p

[DaringMehring]

It's extremely patronizing and alienating to ask what the labor movement and peace movement can make the Democrats do; it needs to be asked what the labor movement and peace movement can do themselves.


I agree that what these movements can get Democrats to do is only part of the picture. They need to build their own power. But, the way they realize what they can of their political programs right now is through their influence on bourgeois politics. It can't be pretended that this isn't the case, nor that a string of victories in this arena doesn't lift them up and help them build, or a string of defeats beat them down.



Ever since the CPUSA became subservient to Moscow, they have had no interest in supporting the working class struggle against capital. The CPUSA is not at all visible in the labor movement or the peace movement. Not now, not since the 1920s! Since the big strikes of 1934 in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, it has been independent minded anti-stalinists who have led the militant class struggle in the US while the Stalinists consistently sell out the working class.


It is semi-slanderous to call CPUSA Stalinists since they denounced the crimes of Stalin a long time ago. But I agree that their role in the mass movements has gone down since the 1930s and part of this is because of their subservience to the interests of the USSR.



Even today, where is the CPUSA engaging the masses around the anti-war movement? What labor battles are the CPUSA engaged in? Give me one example.


Because they do not do this openly, it is hard to give examples, especially so as not to "out" people.

The leadership's positions on some of these issues is quite weak. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't members who pursue these issues more strongly.



They're not open communists because the CPUSA is more of a secret society of Liberal-minded reformists than a party of the masses.


Liberal is not the right term, they are more Social Democratic, basically Second International Social Democrats. Those are different from liberals.



Progressive change doesn't come from Democrats (or any capitalist politicians.)

That is not true. Civil Rights Act, Emancipation, New Deal, etc. were all progressive changes that came from capitalist politicians responding to pressure from movements.

What you want to say, is that socialism doesn't come from Democrats or capitalist politicians. On that, you are 100% right and the CPUSA is wrong.

[DaringMehring]

What you are saying that an alleged revolutionary organization has crossed the class line and is supporting the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but ... .


Everybody knows the CPUSA is not a revolutionary organization and they say so themselves. Their own literature is filled with "socialism will come by the ballot" and "accumulation of modest victories" rhetoric. They aren't revolutionary.



This is a vast understatement. As others have said, the CPUSA is in no position to get behind the Democrats. Truth is, the Democrats, to the extent that they notice the CPUSA at all, are behind it with their foot up the CP's ass. The CPUSA has no independent program. In fact, it has no real independent existence at all. Its program relates to the Democrats; its actions are in relation to the Democrats. Draw your own conclusions.


Fair criticism. Without an independent program, they're slowly dying out.



That's the same bullshit that every social democrat has spout for over 100 years. Can you spell B-e-r-n-s-t-e-i-n?

Yes there is, as embodied in such concepts as a transitional program, but the CPUSA's notions have nothing to do with this. They constitute liberalism and little else.


Here you are contradicting yourself --- and the truth is, they're Bernstein, not liberal.



One movement after another has committed political suicide going into the DP to use it, take it over, bore from within, etc. They're all gone. The DP is riding high, controlling the Presidency and the Congress. Draw your own conclusion.


Agree.



There is no value to it. The CPUSA is a bunch of liberals or, at best, petit-bourgeois radicals. They are doing exactly what you would expect such people to do: commit political suicide in the DP.


They aren't liberals, their membership includes many of the most downtrodden proletarian elements, and plenty of trade unionists. They are social democratic. And yes, they are committing political suicide in the DP.

[graymouser]

I agree that what these movements can get Democrats to do is only part of the picture. They need to build their own power. But, the way they realize what they can of their political programs right now is through their influence on bourgeois politics. It can't be pretended that this isn't the case, nor that a string of victories in this arena doesn't lift them up and help them build, or a string of defeats beat them down.
The CPUSA disproved this in practice during a year of the healthcare debate. Up to the 2008 campaign, the CP in my neck of the woods was involved in the attempts to get single-payer health care on the agenda. As soon as word came down about a "public option," the CPUSA immediately dropped its support for single-payer (I have a Peoples Weekly World pamphlet that calls for "Medicare for All") and went out in favor of the "public option." There was no attempt to influence; that would have meant turning to the unions and the health care coalitions that they work with, and saying we are going to fight for single payer. Instead they dropped their own stance and said they were going in for whatever was going to be passed.


It is semi-slanderous to call CPUSA Stalinists since they denounced the crimes of Stalin a long time ago. But I agree that their role in the mass movements has gone down since the 1930s and part of this is because of their subservience to the interests of the USSR.
Stalinism is not specific to the man Stalin, but rather is a sociological description of a reactionary trend in the socialist movement that developed under Stalin in the USSR and was subsequently given alternate shape by such "luminaries" as Khrushchev, Brezhnev and so on. That it has different varieties should not be confused with non-Stalinism.


The leadership's positions on some of these issues is quite weak. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't members who pursue these issues more strongly.
What's left of the CPUSA has been rallied around electoral activism. Members are deserting the party in droves - 1500 have left out of 2500, all since 2005. Places like Marxism-Leninism Today have given long critiques of these facts, and they were laid out in the public pre-convention discussion.

[RED DAVE]

How do we kill a zombie and give it a decent burial? Stake in the heart? Or is that only for vampires?

RED DAVE

[Zoster]

Stalinism is not specific to the man Stalin, but rather is a sociological description of a reactionary trend in the socialist movement that developed under Stalin in the USSR and was subsequently given alternate shape by such "luminaries" as Khrushchev, Brezhnev and so on. That it has different varieties should not be confused with non-Stalinism.

In other words, the word is entirely meaningless and devoid of content.

[graymouser]

In other words, the word is entirely meaningless and devoid of content.
No, it means that Stalinism - a shorthand for the ideology developed by the bureaucratic regime in the USSR from the mid-1920s up until 1991 - has had several different forms that are basically alike in character. All of them consider "socialism in one country" to be a possibility, whether we're talking about Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao, Hoxha, Castro or anyone else. They all support the suppression, by terror when necessary, of the independence of the workers movement in the degenerated workers state; they all contain contradictory tendencies, between an urge toward capitalist restoration on one hand and the fact that their power rests on their control of the nationalized, planned economy on the other. Their international relationships have always been counter-revolutionary, either in the form of the popular front or third period ultraleftism. The CPUSA has, like the Eurocommunists before it, turned the popular front into outright reformism - but the party has gotten quite old, and there is still a Stalinist remnant even if the leadership would like to deny it.

[chegitz guevara]

How do we kill a zombie and give it a decent burial? Stake in the heart? Or is that only for vampires?

RED DAVE

bullet to the brain pan, squish

[Zoster]

No, it means that Stalinism - a shorthand for the ideology developed by the bureaucratic regime in the USSR from the mid-1920s up until 1991 - has had several different forms that are basically alike in character.

When you describe Khrushchev as a Stalinist, you have made the word meaningless. It literally can used to describe anyone, and therefore, doesn't actually describe anything. Such is the stupidity of Trotskyism.


All of them consider "socialism in one country" to be a possibility, whether we're talking about Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao, Hoxha, Castro or anyone else.And unless you're an absolute moron or counter-revolutionary, you would agree. In fact, the very idea that there will be some world-wide simultaneous revolution is ridiculous and stupid. Yes, socialism most certainly can be and was built in the USSR. As Stalin said, they were not going to "loaf around" waiting for a non-existent revolution to happen in the West.

Trotskyite liars don't ever, ever describe "Socialism in One Country" in any honest fashion. Trot liars try to construe this as "Socialism in Only One Country", which is nothing but a total fraud. The Trotskyite position is either complete and utter nonsense (world-wide simultaneous socialist revolution) or based on lies (the USSR never pursued any such policy as Trotskyites describe).


They all support the suppression, by terror when necessary, of the independence of the workers movement in the degenerated workers stateKilling counter-revolutionary agents of Fascism like Trotsky is hardly suppression of "independence of the workers movement," something which Trotsky himself actually advocated. See the whole Trade Union dispute.


they all contain contradictory tendencies, between an urge toward capitalist restoration on one hand and the fact that their power rests on their control of the nationalized, planned economy on the other.More stupidity that doesn't describe anything. Apparently Gorbachev and Yeltsin are Stalinists now.


Their international relationships have always been counter-revolutionary, either in the form of the popular front or third period ultraleftism.More stupid Trot bullshit not based on fact.


The CPUSA has, like the Eurocommunists before it, turned the popular front into outright reformism - but the party has gotten quite old, and there is still a Stalinist remnant even if the leadership would like to deny it.Revisionism infected these parties that were once good, fighting vanguard parties. It has nothing to do with "Stalinism." Most Trotskyite organizations are full of the worst sorts of social-democratic trash, who are welcomed with open arms because of their mutual hatred of everything socialist. The capitulation towards imperialism and capitalism has been present from the beginning in the communist movement, and has its fingers everywhere, especially in shit Trotskyite groups.

[chegitz guevara]

When you describe Khrushchev as a Stalinist, you have made the word meaningless.

Wrong. It means we use it to describe class forces, not adherence to a single man. Specifically, Stalinism refers to the political tendencies that promote, and are promoted by, the bureaucratic caste that arose in the USSR and subsequent socialist states. Stalin was the person around whom the bureaucracy coalesced, and who, therefore, has given his name to that tendency.

The CPUSA is Stalinist not because they want a cup of Uncle Joe (though there is a tendency in the Party that does just that, the "left" wing), but because they represent bureaucratic socialism. Khrushchev was a Stalinist, not because he was a follower of Stalin, though he had been, but because he represented the interests of the bureaucracy, until he didn't, and then they got rid of him.

The rest of what you write is just dogmatic sectarianism.

[Zoster]

Wrong. It means we use it to describe class forces, not adherence to a single man. Specifically, Stalinism refers to the political tendencies that promote, and are promoted by, the bureaucratic caste that arose in the USSR and subsequent socialist states. Stalin was the person around whom the bureaucracy coalesced, and who, therefore, has given his name to that tendency.

This is, of course, all totally false, meaningless, and anti-Marxist to book (The Party was a class force? What moronic bullshit.).


The CPUSA is Stalinist not because they want a cup of Uncle Joe (though there is a tendency in the Party that does just that, the "left" wing), but because they represent bureaucratic socialism.

This is sheer stupidity. The "Left-wing" of the CPUSA is mostly just people who want to return to the Gus Hall era, the CPUSA itself has all but abandoned any idea of socialism. They have never represented "bureaucratic socialism" in the first place. It was a revolutionary party at one point, then it became a revisionist party that tails behind the liberal bourgeoisie. You might as well describe the Democrats as "Stalinists" with this meaningless mumbo-jumbo bullshit.


Khrushchev was a Stalinist, not because he was a follower of Stalin, though he had been, but because he represented the interests of the bureaucracy, until he didn't, and then they got rid of him.

You might as well say Trotsky, FDR, Lenin, etc, were all "Stalinists" at one point, with this meaningless gibberish.


The rest of what you write is just dogmatic sectarianism.

This is hysterical, coming from you, and the shit you have pulled to people I know personally in Florida (not in your SP-USA social-democrat clique).

[graymouser]

When you describe Khrushchev as a Stalinist, you have made the word meaningless. It literally can used to describe anyone, and therefore, doesn't actually describe anything. Such is the stupidity of Trotskyism.
This is just an assertion. Khrushchev was not sociologically different from Stalin, and the same entrenched bureaucracy ruled under him as had ruled under Stalin. Both repressed the workers' movement in favor of the bureaucracy, and the reality is that the economy and foreign policy of the USSR were not identical under the two men but they didn't change in any fundamental way.


And unless you're an absolute moron or counter-revolutionary, you would agree. In fact, the very idea that there will be some world-wide simultaneous revolution is ridiculous and stupid. Yes, socialism most certainly can be and was built in the USSR. As Stalin said, they were not going to "loaf around" waiting for a non-existent revolution to happen in the West.
The revolutionary wave of 1917-1921 was defeated outside of the USSR, but Trotsky's argument was that the Comintern needed to support foreign revolutions. Stalin instead used it as a foreign policy arm of the USSR, most visible in his betrayal of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions but also in Germany and France.

The rest of your rant is semi-coherent assertions and deserves no reply.

[Zoster]

This is just an assertion. Khrushchev was not sociologically different from Stalin, and the same entrenched bureaucracy ruled under him as had ruled under Stalin.

This is just blatantly false. That you assert this kind of garbage is hysterical, and shows you know nothing about Soviet history.


Both repressed the workers' movement in favor of the bureaucracy

More stupid Trotskyite lies that have no basis in fact. This coming from a supporter of Trotsky, who supported the militarization of labor.


and the reality is that the economy and foreign policy of the USSR were not identical under the two men but they didn't change in any fundamental way.

Your stupidity knows no bounds. In fact, everything about Khruschev's foreign policy represented a complete break with Stalin.


The revolutionary wave of 1917-1921 was defeated outside of the USSR, but Trotsky's argument was that the Comintern needed to support foreign revolutions. Stalin instead used it as a foreign policy arm of the USSR, most visible in his betrayal of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions but also in Germany and France.

More blatant and utterly stupid bullshit. The only reason Spain wasn't defeated in a matter of months was because of massive Soviet aid. There was no "Spanish Revolution." There were some anarchists doing play-pretend revolution in the middle of a war against fascism, and the POUM following after them. Trotsky's analysis of China was that it was a customs dispute, and completely and utterly ignored the peasant factor.

Permanent Revolution, in practical terms, meant not actually trying to build socialism in the USSR. Like all ultra-Left errors, they serve the purposes of capitalism. That's what Trotsky's policies would have actually meant in practice.

[Raúl Duke]

can the CPUSA be taken back by Marxists, or is it a lost cause?It's a lost cause.

It's probably more worthwhile to move the SPUSA towards a more radical route (although from what I gather the issue is not the rank & file but the leadership..although I just don't understand how people like Brian Moore get made into leaders/candidates without something being wrong).

There's also the PSL...

[graymouser]

This is just blatantly false. That you assert this kind of garbage is hysterical, and shows you know nothing about Soviet history.
Actually, the reality is that there was no radical discontinuity in the economy or the forms of rule. Albert Szymanski, a sociologist who started as a Maoist, tried to prove otherwise and had to conclude that there was no fundamental difference between Soviet "socialism" under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. His book, called "Is the Red Flag Flying," is the only serious attempt I know of to determine whether or not this was the case. Now I don't agree with where he was coming from in the book, but the fact is that when "anti-revisionists" tried to define what "state capitalism" meant in Russia it basically came down to "I don't like the guy in charge now." It's even worse than the Trotskyist attempts at a state-cap theory.


More stupid Trotskyite lies that have no basis in fact. This coming from a supporter of Trotsky, who supported the militarization of labor.
Trotsky was in favor of emergency policies so that the Soviet state could last until it was buttressed by a foreign revolution. Stalin murdered over half of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of 1917. Not comparable.


Your stupidity knows no bounds. In fact, everything about Khruschev's foreign policy represented a complete break with Stalin.
Give specifics - Khrushchev's "peaceful co-existence" is a policy with clear roots in the Popular Front period. If everything was different you should be able to give details.


Permanent Revolution, in practical terms, meant not actually trying to build socialism in the USSR. Like all ultra-Left errors, they serve the purposes of capitalism. That's what Trotsky's policies would have actually meant in practice.
It meant admitting that the workers state, outside of the context of a world revolution, could only exist with the four conditions of the Comintern for a workers state - nationalization of productive property, central planning of the economy, monopoly of foreign trade, and workers' democracy - until the world revolution allowed it to permanently end class struggle and move on to socialism, which in the conditions of backward Russia only meant a socialization of want. Socialism is the socialization of plenty. In reality, the attempt to socialize want eventually led to capitalist restoration.

[chegitz guevara]

This is sheer stupidity.

I know you are, but what am I?

Try and discuss things without being an annoying prick or simply repeating the same assertions over and over.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

This is just blatantly false. That you assert this kind of garbage is hysterical, and shows you know nothing about Soviet history.

OK, oh enlightened super-activist Soviet history master, how about you show some evidence for at least one or two of your arguments or make an actual explanation instead of resorting to ad hominem? Enjoy your infraction for flaming.


More stupid Trotskyite lies that have no basis in fact. This coming from a supporter of Trotsky, who supported the militarization of labor
You fail to grasp one of the most fundamental concepts of Marxism, and that is that we are concerned with class struggle, not following individual leaders who have been dead for decades. The CPUSA is Stalinist because it supported Stalin, was tied to the Stalin's bureaucracy, and is a remnant of Stalin's bureaucracy. The CPUSA and Stalin betrayed the workers on numerous occasions.

Here are some specific examples of the CPUSA betraying the workers' movement:

...the Stalinists became the worst jingoes and strikebreakers in the labor movement, and when Browder, then the official chief of the party by grace of Stalin, even went so far as to offer to shake hands with J. P. Morgan. (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/cannon/works/1947/amstalandantistal.htm)

Foster had, in fact, been one of the most vocal opponents in 1944 of Browder's decisions to re (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Z._Foster)name the CPUSA as the Communist Political Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Political_Association) and to propose the continuation of the no-strike pledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-strike_pledge&action=edit&redlink=1) after the end of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). The entire leadership of the Party came to Browder's defense then; the Comintern directed Foster to withdraw his criticisms.

The Comintern considered the Foster-Browder dispute for (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm) two weeks before coming to a conclusion. It sided with Browder and stated, that his approach to major political and tactical questions was correct and "with this Comrade Foster should also agree."
...
As the Popular Front deepened, party leader Earl Browder began to become more and more infatuated with the idea of the CP functioning semi-officially as part of the New Deal administration. When the Popular Front period started, he advocated support of the petty-bourgeois Farmer-Labor party. He soon came to realize that open support for FDR made more sense. There was lingering support in the CPUSA for the Farmer-Labor party when this overture was first presented to the party. Daily Worker editor Clarence Hathaway was calling for an orientation to the Farmer-Labor party as late as 1937.
(the same Farmer-Labor Party who called in the National Guard to murder workers in the streets of Minneapolis in 1934)

Although the author of the above text makes some other pretty nonsensical points, the point I am trying to make is these historical facts show who the real revisionists are.



Your stupidity knows no bounds. In fact, everything about Khruschev's foreign policy represented a complete break with Stalin.

Let's see, here's one example of the huge differences between Kruschev and Stalin: Stalin committed ethnic cleansing against Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, Koreans, Greeks, and Kurds. Kruschev apologized to a few of those groups but didn't allow them to return to their homes. That's some real change!

But if you're such a freaking expert on this stuff, why don't you explain to me how socialism gets built on destroyed on the whims of individual leaders?


Permanent Revolution, in practical terms, meant not actually trying to build socialism in the USSR. Like all ultra-Left errors, they serve the purposes of capitalism. That's what Trotsky's policies would have actually meant in practice.

Well we can't really know what Trotsky's policies would have meant in practice, but we know that "Stalin's policies" meant collaboration with imperialist powers and attempts to make socialism coexist alongside capitalism, because that's what actually happened and that's what Stalin's puppet parties promoted in the West.