CPUSA Boasts of "Calling 1,500 New Members"

[RedScare]

http://www.peoplesworld.org/hello-communist-party-calling/


ST. LOUIS, Mo. - "You really made my day," said the voice on the other end of the phone, from Austin, Texas. "I'm so happy to hear from you guys." He was on his way to the South by Southwest music festival, but paused long enough to talk to a phonebanker.
That was a typical response from the coast-to-coast call to 1,500 new members of the Communist Party USA (http://www.peoplesworld.org/communist-party-to-host-national-conference/) and Young Communist League on March 19. All had joined the CPUSA (http://www.peoplesworld.org/is-democracy-inherent-in-socialism/) or YCL online recently, and some were getting their first contact.
"It was a great reception. People really want to be a part of the Communist Party," said Jonathan, one of the phone bankers. "Several people were very excited and said, 'I was wondering when someone was going to call me.'"
"The positive response from so many was very uplifting," said Zenobia Thompson. "I look forward to doing this regularly."
The calls were made using a predictive dialer system typically used in election campaigns. Members were asked if they wanted to renew their membership, update their contact info, sign up for the CPUSA's or its press's email lists and pay membership dues or make a financial contribution.
"This is a historic event for us," Roberta Wood, CPUSA Secretary-Treasurer, told the phone bankers during a break. "I don't think even a few years ago we could have pictured the Communist Party calling around the country on an automatic dialer system."
The national call is one of several initiatives the CPUSA is taking to bolster contact with its membership. Lack of contact was in fact the biggest complaint of the new members. Many live in areas that are isolated or don't have a party organization. Getting a call meant a lot.
"What people are concerned about most is how to get involved and we can help," said Tony Pecinovsky, CPUSA organizer for the Missouri-Kansas district. "People were a little concerned about not being contacted as quickly as we would like."
"I spoke with a lot of young people who had signed up on the CPUSA website and were really excited to be having their first conversation with an actual member," said Noah Toler. "Mainly people were interested in what the Party was thinking about this or that issue."
Many were already active with the Party and YCL locally, in their unions, or through local struggles. A lot expressed enthusiasm for developments in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio and the protest wave sweeping the country. They were happy to know the Party and YCL were deeply involved in the fight.
"A lot of people were very happy to hear what we were doing," said Janet Edburg, another phonebanker. "One member was so excited about what was happening in Wisconsin I thought he was going to jump out of the phone!"
The new members joining are one of several indicators of Party and YCL growth. It's all part of the explosion in activism and rapidly changing thinking among the American people. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows (http://www.peoplesworld.org/communism-gains-ground-among-americans/) 11 percent of adults think communism is a better political system than capitalism. That's roughly 15 million Americans.
"Three people told me they previously had more conservative views. But since the economy has gone south for working people, they are starting to latch on to different ways of looking at things," said Earl Clay. "This indicates to me the country is going through a metamorphosis and more people want to do things to change the direction of things."
In a conversation with a member, Edburg described her activism in building a movement for jobs and against budget cuts to home energy assistance and community block grant programs.
"We'll be marching Friday. We're going to keep on marching and keep on fighting," she told the member who in turn told Edburg how good it felt to hear from her and the Party. "It makes me feel good just to talk to you too," she said.


What do you guys think? Growth is a good thing, I suppose, even if it's for a party that's still firmly bent on supporting the Democrats.

[Amphictyonis]

All COPS :) 1,500 of them.

[genstrike]

It really shows how sad and decrepit the internal workings of your party are when you brag in your party newspaper that you've actually had contact with your own members.

[28350]

If that made 1,500 more people wanting to call themselves communists, I'd be really happy.

[Amphictyonis]

If that made 1,500 more people wanting to call themselves communists, I'd be really happy.

Trash rules everything around me T.R.E.A.M. get the garbage...rotten rotten food ya'll!

[Kassad]

Get in the streets and we can talk. 1,500 people signing an online form does not mean dedicated, revolutionary activism. It's also a shame that these people will be taught that "communism" means supporting the Democratic Party. Maybe in 2012, Obama's campaign website can list them as an endorser and we can watch the sparks fly. :D

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well the problem with the CPUSA is of course that they're Social-Democrats right about now but still hold the title "Communist Party". Which means when people first start thinking of themselves as communists the first party they're probably going to consider joining is the CPUSA. That's exactly what happened to me, I started getting interested in communism so that was the first place I went. Hell the first place I heard of the PSL, ISO, etc, was on Revleft. If it wasn't for this place I probably would have already joined the CPUSA long ago. There is currently a group trying to turn the party back into a M-L party, so we'll see how that goes.

[Le Socialiste]

That's all well and good, sure, however the CPUSA is well known for being little more than a firm supporter of the Democratic Party. If the party were to break with American capitalism/imperialism, all the power to it. Until then, I'll just offer my skeptical enthusiasm.

[Le Socialiste]

There is currently a group trying to turn the party back into a M-L party, so we'll see how that goes.


I would assume it's a group within the party (this may sound like a silly question, but I figured I would ask anyway)? If so, do they have much support? I'm asking this on the assumption that you know some details...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I would assume it's a group within the party (this may sound like a silly question, but I figured I would ask anyway)? If so, do they have much support? I'm asking this on the assumption that you know some details...
Yes it's a group inside the party. I really don't know how strong they are but the sense I get is the leadership are almost all reformists while a lot of the younger members are not. I think the Houston branch called for a national convention to settle some questions like the party's line on imperialism and if this happens this would probably be brought up too.

I had a friend that is part of the group but he hasn't talked to me in a while :crying:

[Property Is Robbery]

I contacted CP before asking people here about it. I had been in the PSL for 2 months before they contacted me back. It took CP-USA 4 months to call me. Not very well organized to say the least.

[The Red Next Door]

CPUSA is getting smaller, they are ready dismantle their office in Saint Louis and it now belong to Missourian for reform and empowerment.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm not a member of the CPUSA (for obvious reasons, seeing as party membership - in general - runs counter to my non-affialiation stance), but it seems to me that its membership is largely comprised of those who genuinely believe that communism/socialism is the peoples' way forward; by contrast, it would appear the Party leadership is devoted to towing the official line of the Democrats. To anyone's knowledge, is this about right? Do correct me if I'm off the mark, here. :)

[Salyut]

1,500 new Democratic Party members.

amirite

[graymouser]

There is currently a group trying to turn the party back into a M-L party, so we'll see how that goes.
I'm assuming you're talking about the people behind "Marxism-Leninism Today," a web site that carries articles critical of the CP leadership as well as some of more general interest. They are mostly trying to recapture the Gus Hall era, which was already firmly bound to the Democratic Party but had a more significant veneer of independence to its actions. Even in the '60s the CP was understood to be well to the right of most of the revolutionary left.

As for the CPUSA today, well, the truth is that it's basically announcing that the party has finally gotten its act together. It's worse than useless, the main role of the Communist Party today is to keep the left in the grasp of the Democratic Party machine.

[Salyut]

I'm assuming you're talking about the people behind "Marxism-Leninism Today," a web site that carries articles critical of the CP leadership as well as some of more general interest. They are mostly trying to recapture the Gus Hall era, which was already firmly bound to the Democratic Party but had a more significant veneer of independence to its actions.

Doesn't the party purge anyone who talks along those lines? I know there was a bit of a incident with CPUSA members criticizing the party line in Canada awhile back.

[Astarte]

The great thing about the Communist Party of the USA is that it has the "Communist" name that people who are generally politically uneducated will first gravitate towards when interested in "communism" because it is the "Communist" Party... The problem with the CPUSA today is it is a hollow cheerleader of the Democrats... who knows though, maybe the CPUSA will grow some backbone and decide if they are Marxist-Leninists or petty-bourgeois social democrats.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I'm assuming you're talking about the people behind "Marxism-Leninism Today," a web site that carries articles critical of the CP leadership as well as some of more general interest. They are mostly trying to recapture the Gus Hall era, which was already firmly bound to the Democratic Party but had a more significant veneer of independence to its actions. Even in the '60s the CP was understood to be well to the right of most of the revolutionary left.

As for the CPUSA today, well, the truth is that it's basically announcing that the party has finally gotten its act together. It's worse than useless, the main role of the Communist Party today is to keep the left in the grasp of the Democratic Party machine.

They've basically never left the popular front behind. McCarthy was right in one sense, there were a lot of communists in the State Department, but everyone knew they were there. In fact, if I remember correctly, the CPUSA essentially stopped functioning as an independent organ beginning in WWII and only regained nominal independence from the Democrats in the fifties.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Even in the '60s the CP was understood to be well to the right of most of the revolutionary left.
I don't think there's ever been a "decent" time for the CPUSA except since it's beginnings. I would say from 1919 (it's founding) to around the mid-1920s... So that's a very short time.

I have a lot of time on my hands, so time for a history lesson:
The Communist Party started out as the expelled left-wing of the Socialist Party. After many years of internal fighting, the Right-wing expelled the Left-Wing from the party. This was only done because the Right-Wing, with help from Victor Berger (American's conservative version of Eduard Bernstein) had secured enough manipulative power in the National Executive Committee. The Left always supported Eugene Debs and Big Bill Haywood, although neither joined the CP. The Socialist Party also had a large amount of Foreign Language Federations and branches, and these members, fresh from Europe and with an understanding of Marxism, always approached the leading Party members on it's rather moderate and conservative stances. Victor Berger (leader of the right-wing) and Morris Hillquit (leader of the Moderates, who always cooperated with the Right) usually shrugged off the immigrants and their thirst for Marxism and revolution... This really didn't help, but from most accounts I've read, it seems like, besides those who formed the Communist Labor Party (quickly absorbed into the CP by Lenin's urging), quite a few of these people became disillusioned and frustrated with American socialist politics and dropped out entirely. It was nice for people to finally have a devout Marxist party, considering:
1) The Socialist Labor Party's early years consisted of Lassallean politics fused together with Marxist influence. It eventually came under the influence of Daniel De Leon, who, although claimed to be a Marxist, definitely transformed into a Syndicalist.
2) The Socialist Party had a strong left wing, but it was never essentially Marxist. The Right-Wing was strong of support in Wisconsin, and several various small areas, and had large voting and financial contributions by the middle-class (lawyers, doctors, etc.) The Moderates, who had started out as their own branch, eventually by 1905, came into a close relationship with the Right-Wing. They took several different paths from the Right, but when it came down to siding with the Left or Right, the Right was given the support. The Left-Wing always won when it came to presidential choices, because the Left were strong-supporters of Debs, and even his closest enemies liked the guy. Berger finally had his first chance in 1916 to run a Right-Wing Socialist candidate as president. The result? The Socialist vote dropped by 33%, losing over 300,000 votes.

The Communist Party started out with nice beginnings, but just as some would say happened in Russia, a degeneration already began in America. Rather than beating up capitalists, there have been stories where members of the Communist Party beat up Trotskyists in the 20s and 30s. Talk about sectarianism... Besides these incidents, the party itself began to take orders from Moscow, rather than having its own mind. I'm not completely bagging on the early Party, because they did some great things too. In the 30s, they helped big time in workplace struggles, and were a major force of strength in helping disenfranchised blacks in the deep south. But their origins of Marxism were young and gone. They had a few solid years before they started getting stupid on certain issues. Man, what a disappointment for those who wanted a orthodox Marxist party for so many years.

It's also kind of awkward a former card-carrying I.W.W. Anarcho-Syndicalist was one of the leading members: chairman, general-secretary, and presidential candidate 3 times. A very right-wing Anarcho-Syndicalist, but still weird that he became the face of the party and supporter of Stalin. Lawlz.

My rant is done. I'll go back to trolling

[The Douche]

Does the party have a functioning youth organization? Could a concentrated effort be formed in there to secure a marxist position in the party?

Back when I was young and in the SP, somebody once advised me, that since YPSL had less than a dozen active members if me and my friends joined it we would be able to essentially control its politics and then we'd have an organized platform to push for a revolutionary position within the party.

[Rusty Shackleford]

its a historic even to be capable of robocalling people?

sure it helps to make phone banking easier but i dont think its historic.

im guessing the democratic party lent the technology to the CP.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

They sounded more excited about the technology than the members.

[Q]

As someone on Leftist Trainspotters' mentioned:


Wow, that dialing system and the CPUSA have something in common, both are "typically used in election campaigns."

Says all that needs to be said.

[hardlinecommunist]

It really shows how sad and decrepit the internal workings of your party are when you brag in your party newspaper that you've actually had contact with your own members. Well Said I thought that i was the only one thinking this think you

[hardlinecommunist]

1,500 new Democratic Party members.

amirite
Yes Indeed

[Paulappaul]

1) The Socialist Labor Party's early years consisted of Lassallean politics fused together with Marxist influence. It eventually came under the influence of Daniel De Leon, who, although claimed to be a Marxist, definitely transformed into a Syndicalist.

Funny considering that Deleon hated to be called a Syndicalist haha.

[graymouser]

Doesn't the party purge anyone who talks along those lines? I know there was a bit of a incident with CPUSA members criticizing the party line in Canada awhile back.
They are definitely isolated but as far as I know not purged - I believe Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny, the two people you're talking about, are still in the party. The party's internal life is dead to the point where the newspaper and magazine were shifted to online-only without any kind of vote from the membership.

[Kassad]

A while back, someone from CPUSA in Cleveland ran for office. I don't remember what office it was, but you could not find the words "communist" or "socialist" on that website if you spent all day looking. I have heard about the Marxist-Leninist tendency (not an official name, just my description I suppose) within the party, but I think it's kind of a stupid thing to work towards, if you ask me. There are legitimate Marxist-Leninist parties in the United States right now that are actually fighting for revolution. Why fight to turn a once revolutionary party away from liberalism when there are already fighting organizations that have taken its place?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

A while back, someone from CPUSA in Cleveland ran for office. I don't remember what office it was, but you could not find the words "communist" or "socialist" on that website if you spent all day looking. I have heard about the Marxist-Leninist tendency (not an official name, just my description I suppose) within the party, but I think it's kind of a stupid thing to work towards, if you ask me. There are legitimate Marxist-Leninist parties in the United States right now that are actually fighting for revolution. Why fight to turn a once revolutionary party away from liberalism when there are already fighting organizations that have taken its place?

I agree, but I think we need to acknowledge the fact that people likely want the HISTORIC M-L party to BE an M-L party. Not just for nostalgia's sake and what-not, but because, as has been said previously, it's a place a lot of people go when they are first getting involved in leftist politics or starting to consider themselves "communists" or "M-L" and it would be nice for them to actually interact with a leftist organization instead of a group with politics similar to, if not to the right of, DSA.

[graymouser]

There are legitimate Marxist-Leninist parties in the United States right now that are actually fighting for revolution. Why fight to turn a once revolutionary party away from liberalism when there are already fighting organizations that have taken its place?
Aside from the name, the Communist Party USA is, ah, not a poor organization. They own real estate in downtown Manhattan, where they recently spent a considerable amount of money on a renovation. There's no longer a party press (fun fact: Prompt Press in Camden, NJ used to put out Workers World and the local anarchist paper Defenestrator as well as the People's Weekly World) but there is enough to keep 20-odd people on staff full time and pay for expensive consulting on their web sites and so forth. Plus the party owns some real estate outside of Manhattan. If a dedicated group could seize the party machinery and fire all the people running it, you could get quite an operation going.

[Kassad]

Aside from the name, the Communist Party USA is, ah, not a poor organization. They own real estate in downtown Manhattan, where they recently spent a considerable amount of money on a renovation. There's no longer a party press (fun fact: Prompt Press in Camden, NJ used to put out Workers World and the local anarchist paper Defenestrator as well as the People's Weekly World) but there is enough to keep 20-odd people on staff full time and pay for expensive consulting on their web sites and so forth. Plus the party owns some real estate outside of Manhattan. If a dedicated group could seize the party machinery and fire all the people running it, you could get quite an operation going.

Tell me that's going to happen any time soon. Most of the parties that used to be major forces in the American socialist movement (Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party) have either been hijacked by liberals or anti-communists. Clinging to relics of the past isn't going to do much for our cause, but building legitimate Marxist alternatives will. That's why real Marxist organizations are gaining momentum. People can spend years trying to make CPUSA Marxist-Leninist again, but it's going to be in vain.

[graymouser]

Tell me that's going to happen any time soon. Most of the parties that used to be major forces in the American socialist movement (Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party) have either been hijacked by liberals or anti-communists. Clinging to relics of the past isn't going to do much for our cause, but building legitimate Marxist alternatives will. That's why real Marxist organizations are gaining momentum. People can spend years trying to make CPUSA Marxist-Leninist again, but it's going to be in vain.
I don't disagree, really. I'm just saying that the stakes aren't just a name, the CPUSA apparatus is quite significant, and may be a factor in the circles who are trying to "take back" the party.

Though it's odd to say that the SWP is hijacked by liberals or anti-communists. Insane personality cult, I'm with you all day - liberal or anti-communist, not so much.

[Tim Finnegan]

Are all American revolutionaries as bitter as you fellas seem to be, or is it just the Leninists? :confused:

[Red_Struggle]

Comrade Foster is rolling in his grave.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Are all American revolutionaries as bitter as you fellas seem to be, or is it just the Leninists? :confused:

I'd like to see you come live in a place where being the largest on the left means you crack .000333% of the populace being members rather than .008065%, Mr. I-Live-In-A-Country-Where-The-Word-Socialist-Doesn't-Automatically-Make-People-Reach-For-A-Weapon. :lol:

[Aurorus Ruber]

CPUSA is getting smaller, they are ready dismantle their office in Saint Louis and it now belong to Missourian for reform and empowerment.

I'm surprised to read about communist activity in St Louis at all. I didn't know this area, with all its conservatism, had such a thing.

[RedScare]

Are all American revolutionaries as bitter as you fellas seem to be, or is it just the Leninists? :confused:
You try living in the belly of the beast sometime, and see how easy it is to stay chipper.

[Tim Finnegan]

You try living in the belly of the beast sometime, and see how easy it is to stay chipper.
The anarchists seem to manage. Go throw a brick, let off some steam. ;)

[graymouser]

Are all American revolutionaries as bitter as you fellas seem to be, or is it just the Leninists? :confused:
Who's bitter? We're talking about the greatest failure the American revolutionary movement ever produced, here, having long since transformed itself from a mass party into an organization that mostly serves to keep left liberals in the Democratic Party ranks. Some degree of bitterness might come across in that discussion, but revolutionaries have a duty to be honest even if the truth is unpleasant.

[Tim Finnegan]

Who's bitter? We're talking about the greatest failure the American revolutionary movement ever produced, here, having long since transformed itself from a mass party into an organization that mostly serves to keep left liberals in the Democratic Party ranks. Some degree of bitterness might come across in that discussion, but revolutionaries have a duty to be honest even if the truth is unpleasant.
Yeah, fair point. I suppose I forget exactly how poor the state of the revolutionary left in the US- even Britain, in which it is shoddy at best, has it better than you guys.

[Lucretia]

I've talked to a few local members of the communist party. They're just a bunch of angry, confused democrats. The CPUSA does more harm than good to the revolutionary socialist movement, since they sometimes probably channel people who theoretically agree with revolutionary socialism into supporting a thoroughly capitalist party. They should just disband, drop the flowery rhetoric, and join their brothers and sisters in supporting the democratic party.

[genstrike]

They should just disband, drop the flowery rhetoric, and join their brothers and sisters in supporting the democratic party.

That would be entertaining, if only to see the other left groups fight for dibs on the name.

[graymouser]

That would be entertaining, if only to see the other left groups fight for dibs on the name.
Well, I wouldn't know how many would "fight" over it. There already have been other groups calling themselves CP; there was the Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist) in the 1960s where the leader infamously lost the entire treasury gambling in Las Vegas. And there was the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) that formed out of the October League and was one of the larger New Communist Movement groupings during the '70s. The CP(ML) briefly achieved the "official" franchise from Deng Xiaoping's Chinese Communist Party, and supported Pol Pot, but disbanded a few years later. It seems that the party's rank and file were simply not good enough for the leadership (!).

If anybody went for it, I would guess it'd be the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (the one that publishes Fight Back! newspaper). Not only would it be more or less in line with their politics, it'd also clear up the long-standing problem where there are two groups calling themselves the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

[Drosophila]

The CPUSA's leadership is crap. The best leftist political party, in my opinion, is the Green Party.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The CPUSA's leadership is crap. The best leftist political party, in my opinion, is the Green Party.

They're like... totally revolutionary. Useless failures.

[Drosophila]

They're like... totally revolutionary. Useless failures.

The difference between the GPUSA and the CPUSA is that the Green Party leadership actually distinguishes itself from the Democratic Party, and actually runs candidates. The Communist Party hasn't done shit for the past two decades, and it's leader supports Obama (WTF??).

[DrStrangelove]

The difference between the GPUSA and the CPUSA is that the Green Party leadership actually distinguishes itself from the Democratic Party, and actually runs candidates. The Communist Party hasn't done shit for the past two decades, and it's leader supports Obama (WTF??).

Social Democrats =/= Communists/Revolutionary Socialists

Ralph Nader's "slightly left of the Democrats" politics is hardly leftist

[Robocommie]

All COPS :) 1,500 of them.

Haha, this just in, the CPUSA has just become the most hardline party in the American leftist scene as the majority membership has urged bloody riots nationwide, amid cries of "SO YOU GUYS KNOW OF ANY SECRET MEETINGS?"

[The Red Next Door]

I'm surprised to read about communist activity in St Louis at all. I didn't know this area, with all its conservatism, had such a thing.


Where have you been? This city have a RED history. This was commune for period until the Pigs and KKK took the city back from the workers.

which why we celebrate fair st.louis, it a festival for fascist pigs

[The Red Next Door]

The difference between the GPUSA and the CPUSA is that the Green Party leadership actually distinguishes itself from the Democratic Party, and actually runs candidates. The Communist Party hasn't done shit for the past two decades, and it's leader supports Obama (WTF??).

GPUSA is not better, it a Capitalist party over all. I mean I know it mix. but still they are not better than CPUSA.

[Aspiring Humanist]

The CPUSA sounds like the PCB in the 60s. I wouldn't count on these moderates to participate in the revolution

[graymouser]

The difference between the GPUSA and the CPUSA is that the Green Party leadership actually distinguishes itself from the Democratic Party, and actually runs candidates. The Communist Party hasn't done shit for the past two decades, and it's leader supports Obama (WTF??).
Well, the Green Party is not a working class party. It's openly a cross-class party and it programmatically calls for a reformed capitalism. Also, there is a significant faction in the Green Party who see it as essentially a tool for pressuring the Democrats - they ran a candidate for President in 2004 who called for voters to vote Kerry in contested states, and for him in "safe states." So the independence is really not as complete as you picture it.

As for the support of the CPUSA for Obama, well, the party went all the way down the road of the Popular Front decades ago. They used to run their own candidates to avoid embarrassing the Democrats; now they don't even bother.

[Unclebananahead]

Is the CPUSA currently supporting/upholding Obama? Or was it just supporting him back during the 2008 election?

[graymouser]

Is the CPUSA currently supporting/upholding Obama? Or was it just supporting him back during the 2008 election?
They've supported Obama ever since the 2008 elections. They've taken the stance that he was elected by a "broad all-people's front" and the de facto head of the current left-center coalition in this country, even though neither ever existed.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Where have you been? This city have a RED history. This was commune for period until the Pigs and KKK took the city back from the workers.

which why we celebrate fair st.louis, it a festival for fascist pigs

So I've heard, but didn't that happen over 130 years ago? I have not heard of any other major examples of socialist activity in the city, certainly not in the past few decades. It always struck me as a rather conservative city.

[Kassad]

There have been more people on this forum than usual putting forth support for the Green Party. Let me at least say this and settle the issue: if you're supporting the Green Party, you are not an advocate of working class liberation. You're putting forth a program that infers that there can be a kinder and gentler capitalism. There's also a reason why people are growing disenfranchised with the Green Party as already mentioned above. Marxist parties in the United States call for revolution because that's what we need. The working class shouldn't have to weasel their way into the system to make headway. They should be the ones pulling the strings.

I remember having illusions in the Greens and other liberal groups when I was younger. Needless to say, it doesn't last long if you are really pursuing methods that will be best for the working class. That's why I joined the PSL, frankly. The majority of the Green Party at this point seems to consist of people who were lifelong supporters of the Democratic Party and as they grow old and potentially closer to death, they are dissatisfied with what the Democratic Party has done. They feel like they've wasted their time politically and they scramble to promote an alternative. However, if the alternative is generally the same thing as the first instance, it won't do much.

The leadership of the Green Party is just power hungry. They want to be the new kids on the block that run things even though it's a fantasy. We ran a PSL candidate for office here in Ohio and we received the Green Party nomination to get ballot access. The vast majority of the people at the convention supported us, but the leaders opposed us immensely. However, they couldn't contradict the will of the majority that they claim to uphold so much, so they had to give their nomination. It just shows that they are in no way interested in revolutionary alternatives. So if you want dead end politics, work with the Greens.

[Unclebananahead]

They've supported Obama ever since the 2008 elections. They've taken the stance that he was elected by a "broad all-people's front" and the de facto head of the current left-center coalition in this country, even though neither ever existed.

So, if I were to make some critical remarks about Obama in front of a CPUSA member, I can reasonably expect that any remarks they would make in response would be to speak in defense of him and his administration? Wait, how is it again that this group can call themselves communists? That's really bizarre. If that's their angle, why don't they just become a branch of the Democratic Party?

[Robocommie]

So, if I were to make some critical remarks about Obama in front of a CPUSA member, I can reasonably expect that any remarks they would make in response would be to speak in defense of him and his administration? Wait, how is it again that this group can call themselves communists? That's really bizarre. If that's their angle, why don't they just become a branch of the Democratic Party?

As I understand it, their argument is that the most pressing concern is the defeat of the Republicans and hardline neo-conservativism/neo-fascistic elements therein. Basically they see working with the Dems as being a strategic alliance to accomplish that end before pursuing proper socialist goals. Eventually.

But it's such bullshit; you will never see the Democrats defeat the Republicans, so that golden day of victory will never actually come, and the CPUSA will just continue to be a watered down bunch of reformists who at one point was actually a revolutionary party. Like, sometime in the '30s or so.

[Drosophila]

Social Democrats =/= Communists/Revolutionary Socialists

Ralph Nader's "slightly left of the Democrats" politics is hardly leftist

Nader isn't even a member of the Green Party anymore.



GPUSA is not better, it a Capitalist party over all. I mean I know it mix. but still they are not better than CPUSA.

Oh really? How come the Communist Party doesn't run any candidates? They make no attempt at all to make reforms. The GP may not be leftist, but at least it runs candidates at the local level, and generally improves governments.


Well, the Green Party is not a working class party. It's openly a cross-class party and it programmatically calls for a reformed capitalism. Also, there is a significant faction in the Green Party who see it as essentially a tool for pressuring the Democrats - they ran a candidate for President in 2004 who called for voters to vote Kerry in contested states, and for him in "safe states." So the independence is really not as complete as you picture it.



Green Party presidential candidates almost always suck. However, the local and Congressional candidates tend to be pretty good. The thing that I like about the Green Party is that it works from the bottom up.


As for the support of the CPUSA for Obama, well, the party went all the way down the road of the Popular Front decades ago. They used to run their own candidates to avoid embarrassing the Democrats; now they don't even bother.

So basically, they're a totally meaningless existence.

[graymouser]

So, if I were to make some critical remarks about Obama in front of a CPUSA member, I can reasonably expect that any remarks they would make in response would be to speak in defense of him and his administration? Wait, how is it again that this group can call themselves communists? That's really bizarre. If that's their angle, why don't they just become a branch of the Democratic Party?
That's the nature of a popular front: the communists in the front drop their criticism of their allies. The CP as far as I've seen thinks Obama is mildly progressive but needs to be supported against attacks from the "ultra-right."

You could really ask why the Communist Party has existed ever since it stopped being the foreign policy representative of the Kremlin in the early 1990s, it's been more or less the same ever since.

[Kassad]

That's the nature of a popular front: the communists in the front drop their criticism of their allies. The CP as far as I've seen thinks Obama is mildly progressive but needs to be supported against attacks from the "ultra-right."

You could really ask why the Communist Party has existed ever since it stopped being the foreign policy representative of the Kremlin in the early 1990s, it's been more or less the same ever since.

The rhetoric I get from members of CPUSA is that they want to keep Republicans from gaining the Presidency and the Congress at all costs and once the right is at bay, revolutionaries will have a chance to put forth their agenda. This is, of course, absolute bullshit and it utterly ignores reality and class antagonisms.

As for dan74, the Green Party is just as useless as CPUSA. Even though the Green Party runs for office, its platforms are hardly to the left of the Democratic Party. It diverts energy of those legitimately sick of the Democrats and puts it into useless electoral campaigns. The PSL, in contrast, runs in the elections and promotes a revolutionary alternative. We point out that capitalism causes economic woes and the only alternative is to build for revolutionary change. That's why we intervene in struggles across the country while the Green Party just runs for office.

[graymouser]

Oh really? How come the Communist Party doesn't run any candidates? They make no attempt at all to make reforms. The GP may not be leftist, but at least it runs candidates at the local level, and generally improves governments.
The CPUSA ran candidates for decades as a fig leaf; they supported the Democrats, but were nominally independent so as to not cause embarrassment.

It's funny that you can basically denounce the Communist Party's popular front with the Democrats and then turn around and talk about working within a cross-class party that is "not leftist." So is it just that they're small scale class opponents that makes it okay? I mean, if you're going to work with a non-communist, non-working class party, it might as well be the Democrats - they actually win some elections.


Green Party presidential candidates almost always suck. However, the local and Congressional candidates tend to be pretty good. The thing that I like about the Green Party is that it works from the bottom up.
I've found the Green Party at the local level to be obnoxious and opportunistic, honestly. We invited them to a local antiwar speak out where all the speakers talked about various topics and how they related to the war, and all the Greens talked about was their party.

[Drosophila]

As for dan74, the Green Party is just as useless as CPUSA. Even though the Green Party runs for office, its platforms are hardly to the left of the Democratic Party. It diverts energy of those legitimately sick of the Democrats and puts it into useless electoral campaigns. The PSL, in contrast, runs in the elections and promotes a revolutionary alternative. We point out that capitalism causes economic woes and the only alternative is to build for revolutionary change. That's why we intervene in struggles across the country while the Green Party just runs for office.

The Green Party is absolutely different from the Democratic Party. GP candidates don't use wedge issues to help them get elected, and they run on a definite platform. With Democrats, you get a small chance that they will actually be progressive, and an even smaller chance that they won't compromise on everything when they get elected. The GP also accepts platform amendments from the public.

The PSL is a growing political force, and it definitely has potential. I can't really say if I do or do not support it, since I've no clue what their platform is.

[The Red Next Door]

The CPUSA ran candidates for decades as a fig leaf; they supported the Democrats, but were nominally independent so as to not cause embarrassment.

It's funny that you can basically denounce the Communist Party's popular front with the Democrats and then turn around and talk about working within a cross-class party that is "not leftist." So is it just that they're small scale class opponents that makes it okay? I mean, if you're going to work with a non-communist, non-working class party, it might as well be the Democrats - they actually win some elections.


I've found the Green Party at the local level to be obnoxious and opportunistic, honestly. We invited them to a local antiwar speak out where all the speakers talked about various topics and how they related to the war, and all the Greens talked about was their party.

example: rich whitey...I mean rick withney.

[Kassad]

The Green Party is absolutely different from the Democratic Party. GP candidates don't use wedge issues to help them get elected, and they run on a definite platform. With Democrats, you get a small chance that they will actually be progressive, and an even smaller chance that they won't compromise on everything when they get elected. The GP also accepts platform amendments from the public.

The PSL is a growing political force, and it definitely has potential. I can't really say if I do or do not support it, since I've no clue what their platform is.

Check out www.PSLweb.org. We have analysis of current events, theory and an assortment of other literature and such. If you'd like to see anything particularly, let me know.

In response, the Green Party believes that capitalism can be reformed to meet the needs of working people. However, anyone with even an objective class analysis of the capitalist system understands that the bourgeoisie will never actually resolve class antagonisms. We must fight the system and become the power or else millions will continue to suffer under this criminal system. We don't need parties that just calls for reforms. We need a party that fights for revolution.

[Drosophila]

I've found the Green Party at the local level to be obnoxious and opportunistic, honestly. We invited them to a local antiwar speak out where all the speakers talked about various topics and how they related to the war, and all the Greens talked about was their party. Too bad for you. The Green Party of New Jersey doesn't do that at all.


The CPUSA ran candidates for decades as a fig leaf; they supported the Democrats, but were nominally independent so as to not cause embarrassment.So it's not going to even attempt reform, out of fear of being embarrassed? What a load of crap.


It's funny that you can basically denounce the Communist Party's popular front with the Democrats and then turn around and talk about working within a cross-class party that is "not leftist." So is it just that they're small scale class opponents that makes it okay? I mean, if you're going to work with a non-communist, non-working class party, it might as well be the Democrats - they actually win some elections.Please explain to me how the Green Party is "non-working class". Either you're lying through your teeth, or you've got no idea what you're talking about.


In response, the Green Party believes that capitalism can be reformed to meet the needs of working people. However, anyone with even an objective class analysis of the capitalist system understands that the bourgeoisie will never actually resolve class antagonisms. We must fight the system and become the power or else millions will continue to suffer under this criminal system. We don't need parties that just calls for reforms. We need a party that fights for revolution.

I guess you don't know that the Green Party stands for worker cooperatives and a living wage.

[Ms. Max]

I generally agree, CPUSA was good in the 30's but is now a front for the democrats. Interesting that none of the 1500 feel discussion on Revleft is worth egaging in however.

[graymouser]

Too bad for you. The Green Party of New Jersey doesn't do that at all.
Actually, you're wrong. There were people from the Green Party of New Jersey, the Green Party of Philadelphia and the Northwest Greens (a group in NW Philly), all of whom intervened in an overbearing, party-building manner, including an invited speaker. Learn what you're talking about.


So it's not going to even attempt reform, out of fear of being embarrassed? What a load of crap.
The CPUSA has been a support machine for the Democrats.


Please explain to me how the Green Party is "non-working class". Either you're lying through your teeth, or you've got no idea what you're talking about.
The Green Party has never been a working class party. It has always explicitly rejected affiliation and donation from trade unions, it has no organic ties to the working class as a class, its program is not a working class program, it does not call for socialism or the unity of the working class as a class. It is primarily a "middle class" party, which means it's oriented around the upper layers of workers as well as the petty bourgeoisie. That's not the kind of party that a communist can work to build. In politics, we need working class independent leadership or we'll never get anywhere.


I guess you don't know that the Green Party stands for worker cooperatives and a living wage.
Sure I do. I'm sure some Democrats also stand for worker cooperatives and a living wage - and a couple may even mean it. That doesn't mean we should vote for the Democrats, and just because the Greens are more thorough left-liberals, it doesn't mean we should vote for them either.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Funny considering that Deleon hated to be called a Syndicalist haha.
Of course, but doesn't make him not a syndicalist!

[Drosophila]

The Green Party has never been a working class party. It has always explicitly rejected affiliation and donation from trade unions, it has no organic ties to the working class as a class, its program is not a working class program, it does not call for socialism or the unity of the working class as a class. It is primarily a "middle class" party, which means it's oriented around the upper layers of workers as well as the petty bourgeoisie. That's not the kind of party that a communist can work to build. In politics, we need working class independent leadership or we'll never get anywhere.

Directly from the Green Party platform:

"We must consciously confront in ourselves, our
organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and
homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law"

"Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice,
environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social,
political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly
benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should,
as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are
protected for all citizens."

"Redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy.
Develop new economic activities and institutions that will allow us to use our new
technologies in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological and accountable, and responsive to
communities.
Establish some form of basic economic security, open to all.
Move beyond the narrow “job ethic” to new definitions of “work,” jobs” and “income” that
reflect the changing economy.
Restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside
the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping,
home gardens, community volunteer work, etc.
Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior
efficiency or technological innovation."

[Zanthorus]

Talk about 'class opression' means squat, frankly. Even directly calling onself 'socialist' or 'communist' is not a gaurantee that the person or group labelled as such actually has decent politics. This has been something of a constant theme since the days of Marx and Engels - witness the long list of 'socialist' groups which M/E took an entire chapter of the Manifesto to denounce as being reactionary or antagonistic to pushing forward the class movement. In an 1882 letter to Bebel Engels' even remarked of his and Marx's political activity over the previous forty odd years that they had "fought harder... against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else (for we only regarded the bourgeoisie as a class and hardly ever involved ourselves in conflicts with individual bourgeois)". Not that I can be bothered to check but I'm fairly sure the CPUSA programme will have a few token mentions of class and class conflict. And 'employee ownership' and 'workplace' democracy' mean nothing, they have been standard talking points of bourgeois humanitarians and petty bourgeois distributivists/mutualists since Proudhon and Schulze-Delitsch. When the Green Party comes out in favour of planning rather than the market and actively suports class struggle (Rather than rhetorically denouncing 'class opression') then you can come back and make your case. Otherwise you've got about as much clout as the CPUSA and their democrat worship.

[graymouser]

Directly from the Green Party platform:
What a mishmash of middle class utopianism!

"Employee ownership" is not socialism if the capitalist market is in tact; same thing with "workplace democracy." I support some of the stuff in here (for instance I think wages for housework etc are a significant contribution of Marxist feminism and would have to be embraced after the revolution) but without calling for the nationalization or socialization of the means of production, public utilities, banks etc, it's all impossible. And the Green Party does not call for even the "commanding heights" of the economy to be nationalized.

This is a left-liberal agenda of a middle-class (petty bourgeois and upper strata working class) party, and working with them is a form of class collaboration just like working with the Democrats is. You'll note that the "class oppression" that you put in boldface does not mention which class the Green Party stands for. Some socialists try to make it with the Greens just because they're "independent," but they do not answer the need for a party that has a working class program.

[hardlinecommunist]

The CPUSA's leadership is crap. The best leftist political party, in my opinion, is the Green Party.
Why do you think that about the Green Party

[hardlinecommunist]

They sounded more excited about the technology than the members. Yes they did