CPUSA - Revisionist, or doing all they can?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Just to get an opinion on this, do you think that CPUSA has its head too far up the Democrats' ass to be a true revolutionary force, or that they're just doing what they can for now?

[RED DAVE]

Just to get an opinion on this, do you think that CPUSA has its head too far up the Democrats' ass to be a true revolutionary force, or that they're just doing what they can for now?The CPUSA has been hoing for the Democrats since about 1936. That's about when they ceased to be any kind of revolutionary party, under the guise of the Popular Front.

RED DAVE

[Ocean Seal]

Just to get an opinion on this, do you think that CPUSA has its head too far up the Democrats' ass to be a true revolutionary force, or that they're just doing what they can for now?
I don't think this, I know it. Voting for anti-worker politicians hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. Obama is no threat to the bourgeois establishment and I would argue that it won't even make a marginal difference if someone like Cain wins. The ruling class has two parties and can use both however they like.

[mrmikhail]

Just to get an opinion on this, do you think that CPUSA has its head too far up the Democrats' ass to be a true revolutionary force, or that they're just doing what they can for now?

The CPUSA is a completely anti-revolutionary organisation, they do nothing but support the democrats in every election, and since the fall of the USSR have basically became a party of bourgeois revisionists. Before the fall they were merely the mouthpiece of the USSR politburo in America, and the way the USSR funnelled in millions of dollars to the civil rights movement...so they've never been good for anything except working for others. Definitely not a revolutionary party and definitely not for the workers.

[RED DAVE]

the cpusa is ... The way the ussr funnelled in millions of dollars to the civil rights movement... .Huh?

RED DAVE

[Obs]

Neither - they're not socialists.

[mrmikhail]

Huh?

RED DAVE


Yes, the CPUSA was funded by the USSR to put money into the US civil right's movement (illegally of course), you did not know of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Soviet_funding_and_espionage the CPUSA formerly had the claim on their website but have since removed it, the end of the USSR forced them to essentially have to re found because they were so funded by the USSR

[ZeroNowhere]

They're doing all that they can.

[RED DAVE]

Yes, the CPUSA was funded by the USSR to put money into the US civil right's movement (illegally of course), you did not know of this?I always remember jokes about the CPUSA and "Moscow Gold," but how was this money funnelled into the Civil Rights Movement?

RED DAVE

[mrmikhail]

I always remember jokes about the CPUSA and "Moscow Gold," but how was this money funnelled into the Civil Rights Movement?

RED DAVE

The USSR sent large sums to the CPUSA (since they were the most loyal to party line, and in their greatest enemy's nation) and instructed them to fund projects for the interests of civil rights (this is why the CPUSA claims to have laid the foundation for the US civil rights movement, they were the first big money group to get involved....). The idea was to disrupt the US internally, and to a lesser extent to help promote racial equality in the US.

[RED DAVE]

The USSR sent large sums to the CPUSA (since they were the most loyal to party line, and in their greatest enemy's nation) and instructed them to fund projects for the interests of civil rights (this is why the CPUSA claims to have laid the foundation for the US civil rights movement, they were the first big money group to get involved....). The idea was to disrupt the US internally, and to a lesser extent to help promote racial equality in the US.Okay, but what projects? I was active in the CRM up to my nostrils, and I can say that the CP and its various youth organizations had very little presence, certainly by 1960.

Are you talking about money that was raised for Martin Luther King by Stanley Levison?

RED DAVE

[mrmikhail]

Okay, but what projects? I was active in the CRM up to my nostrils, and I can say that the CP and its various youth organizations had very little presence, certainly by 1960.

Are you talking about money that was raised for Martin Luther King by Stanley Levison?

RED DAVE

I am uncertain of the specific programs as they didn't kept the records of such around (being as it is technically illegal for a political party to receive money from a foreign government) but I believe they provided funding for quite a few of the organisations active in the CRM, more than likely under anonymous conditions due to aforementioned illegality.

[Zeus the Moose]

They're doing all they can to be revisionists ;)

[Sam Varriano]

Basically they are democratic socialists that support "the lesser of two evils" so to speak

[mrmikhail]

They're doing all they can to be revisionists ;)

They are rather unapologetic revisionists at that....have gotten into more than a few fist fights with their members at rallies in DC.

[Lucretia]

The CPUSA is doing all it can ... to support the Democrats.

[Commissar Rykov]

Neither - they're not socialists.

^This. A fuckin' joke of a party that is nothing more than a wing of the Democrats in everything but name.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They are rather unapologetic revisionists at that....have gotten into more than a few fist fights with their members at rallies in DC.

Yeah, if a left-winger/reformist refuses to come round to revolution, let's pummel them into submission.

What sort of macho-chauvinist claim is this? Grow up!

[Rafiq]

They're reformists/liberal asslickers.

They have no place among the ranks of the radical left

[S.Artesian]

Okay, but what projects? I was active in the CRM up to my nostrils, and I can say that the CP and its various youth organizations had very little presence, certainly by 1960.

Are you talking about money that was raised for Martin Luther King by Stanley Levison?

RED DAVE

Exactly right. I started out with "Friends of SNCC," worked in Open Housing drives. This John Birch Society retread bullshit about the USSR funding the civil rights movement through the CPUSA is fucking ridiculous.

What the CPUSA did do, through its weight in the National Lawyers Guild was provide legal defense to certain specific struggles and individuals.


I am uncertain of the specific programs as they didn't kept the records of such around (being as it is technically illegal for a political party to receive money from a foreign government) but I believe they provided funding for quite a few of the organisations active in the CRM, more than likely under anonymous conditions due to aforementioned illegality.


I am so sick of the ignorance that passes for Marxism around here I could just puke.

Right, you have no evidence [none even after the archives opened up after 1991] but "you believe." Sure you do. You don't know a thing, but you "believe." God bless you. Do you believe in Santy Claus, too?

If the CPUSA did fund an organization active in the CRM-- SNCC, CORE, NAACP, Black Panther Party, SCLC--- well good for them, and good for the organization that took the money.

As to what they are, and what they have been-- the previous posters pretty well have it covered.

[zimmerwald1915]

I am uncertain of the specific programs as they didn't kept the records of such around (being as it is technically illegal for a political party to receive money from a foreign government) but I believe they provided funding for quite a few of the organisations active in the CRM, more than likely under anonymous conditions due to aforementioned illegality.
It would help to know what time period and organization you're talking about. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Civil Rights Congress, for example, were two different organizations operating in different periods, with different contexts and different sources of funding. Or you could just be flinging shit at a brick wall and hoping some of it sticks.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Just to get an opinion on this, do you think that CPUSA has its head too far up the Democrats' ass to be a true revolutionary force, or that they're just doing what they can for now?
They're a joke with a terrible punchline.

Seriously, if they ceased to exist, it would make no practical difference.

[Lucretia]

They're a joke with a terrible punchline.

Seriously, if they ceased to exist, it would make no practical difference.

I disagree. I think their disappearance would have a net positive effect on the movement. Right now there are well meaning people with revolutionary socialist sympathies who get sucked into that group. They are then channeled basically into being activists for the democratic party. If the CPUSA weren't there, they'd probably join a better organization.

[Philosopher Jay]

People might want to look at the diverse and contradictory actual history of the CPUSA. They came the closest to becoming a mass party (in the 1930's) of any of the dozens of socialist parties in the United States in the 20th Century.
Struggling in the heartland of capitalism is always a difficult enterprise, especially when capitalism is thriving and able to provide a large middle-class (50% of the popualtion) with material goods and wonders.
For the communists who declare every day as Oct 24th 1917, and bury themselves in abstract theory and macho slogans, instead of practical activity, things are a lot simpler.

[S.Artesian]

People might want to look at the diverse and contradictory actual history of the CPUSA. They came the closest to becoming a mass party (in the 1930's) of any of the dozens of socialist parties in the United States in the 20th Century.
Struggling in the heartland of capitalism is always a difficult enterprise, especially when capitalism is thriving and able to provide a large middle-class (50% of the popualtion) with material goods and wonders.
For the communists who declare every day as Oct 24th 1917, and bury themselves in abstract theory and macho slogans, instead of practical activity, things are a lot simpler.


Except when the CPUSA was closest to become a mass party capitalism wasn't exactly thriving; and while the sky isn't falling, capitalism is hardly experiencing a golden era right now, and the "middle class" in the US has been declining in size, wealth, and income for 30 years.

Since the turn to the popular front, the CPUSA has anointed itself as nothing other than, in effect, a sort of "superPAC"-- aggregating bodies, not money-- for the Democrats.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Exactly right. I started out with "Friends of SNCC," worked in Open Housing drives. This John Birch Society retread bullshit about the USSR funding the civil rights movement through the CPUSA is fucking ridiculous.

Language please :)

[CommieTroll]

YNq78dZ3TnE

Anyone need proof that the CPUSA is revisionist? And that Glenn Beck is an asshole?

[Rocky Rococo]

They're strictly a netting operation for the Dems now, a catch and return for those deemed to be straying too far left. The CP's embrace of the Dems is a matter of long standing, but since the fall of the Moscow regime it became their sole reason for existence.

[Philosopher Jay]

Good points. They were most successful when the economy of the United States was at its lowest point.
Still, one has to consider the diversity of their membership. They united people from coalminers in Kentucky to textile workers in North Carolina to sharecroppers in Alabama, to artists and teachers in New York to writers and actors in Hollywood.
Specific policies had diverse causes and results.
Taking a "more revolutionary than thou" attitude may not be so helpful. I am not sure that repeating revolutionary slogans bring us one second closer to actual revolutions in the economic base.

[DaringMehring]

The CPUSA's main growth was when it was an actually revolutionary party. So the idea that toning down is necessary to unite broad strata of the population is false.

The CP of the 30s was made from the best revolutionary material of the labor tradition, minus a small bit of fissioning that had already started with the Trotskyists and Bukharinists. It was the closest thing to a mass revolutionary party the USA has ever seen. It was composed of worker-militants united by struggle, and had influence far beyond its numbers.

Starting in the 30s, it started taking not just bad, but really bad decisions, and combined with revelations about Stalin's crimes and US government repression in the 50s, it utterly collapsed.

Talking about today's CP, like it has anything to do with the CP of the 20s-30s, is nonsense.

Right now the CP claims China is socialist, and the Democrats are the vehicle of struggle of the masses. Obama is not the lesser evil to them; he is actually supposed to be good.

The party has no reason to exist, there is no need for a party of people calling themselves "communist" whose practical and ideological work is only to support the Democrats. Its continued existence, is simply from die-hard loyalists who won't give up the ghost and admit that they were part of something that had been rotten for a long time. But these types are generally so old that they're dying off. The Party will probably dissolve itself when this group weakens enough, and the assets will be captured by the wanna-be liberal pundits who run the leadership. They'll try to make themselves more "relevant" by officially becoming what they already are -- a liberal think tank.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

The CPUSA is communist only on its name. In fact it totally represents revisionism and therefore has no relation to a revolutionary party. It is really like a Greek opportunist party SY.RIZ.A which is supposed to be anticapitalist but in fact it bears total reseamblance to the governing party PA.SO.K.

[The CPSU Chairman]

The story of the CPUSA is a damn sad one. I can only imagine how many young potential Communists got disillusioned with the idea after going to the political party with the most obvious Communist title and finding it to be the disgrace that it is.

I nearly joined them myself, until I realized they were full of shit. All that pro-Obama crap made me want to puke. It seems like they're trying to look more like patriots than Communists. Webb actually said recently that Socialism isn't on the table right now. Which of course is obviously the CPUSA position, but just seeing him say it made me facepalm. It's like, if you're not in favor of Communist revolution, then leave the party and go to the Democrats! They don't want or need the Communist Party's help anyway, and even if they did, and even if supporting them wasn't a massive betrayal of the revolution, the CPUSA can only be of minimal support, so honestly I don't see the point.

By the way, that Glenn Beck interview is embarrassing as fuck. I remember watching it on live TV. It was back before I realized what a joke Webb is. My God. What a train wreck. He just let that smug blithering moron dance all over him, and barely even attempted to get two words in, letting Beck interrupt him and change the subject over and over and over again. The unbelievably stupid things Beck said, things I could hardly believe were coming from a political commentator's mouth, would have been laughably easy to counter, but Webb didn't even really try. It was a disaster, and made our entire movement look like a joke. Then the CPUSA of course praised Webb for his performance. Are you fucking kidding me? If I were them, i'd have pretended it didn't even happen, or perhaps impeached Webb from the chairmanship of the party. Just goes to show how they live in their own little world. I mean, even I could have done a thousandfold better job in that interview than Webb did, and i'm still a sort of newbie to Communism.

[Philosopher Jay]

Every socialist group labels every other socialist group as either revisionist or ultra-leftist and claims every other group has failed, is failing, will fail because of this.
It reminds me of early Christianity and the way all groups labelled its opponents as heretics.
Rather, perhaps, imagining communist parties as failures and capitalists as successful is a part of capitalist ideology. This laziness/haziness prevents our seeing the amazing contradictions that we exist among and the realization that communism is and must also contains contradictions at every moment and turn.
Those who don't see and celebrate the victories of international communism are a gloomy lot, just as those who don't assail the tragedies and problems are just cheer-leaders shaking pom-poms.

[Lucretia]

Every socialist group labels every other socialist group as either revisionist or ultra-leftist and claims every other group has failed, is failing, will fail because of this.
It reminds me of early Christianity and the way all groups labelled its opponents as heretics.
Rather, perhaps, imagining communist parties as failures and capitalists as successful is a part of capitalist ideology. This laziness/haziness prevents our seeing the amazing contradictions that we exist among and the realization that communism is and must also contains contradictions at every moment and turn.
Those who don't see and celebrate the victories of international communism are a gloomy lot, just as those who don't assail the tragedies and problems are just cheer-leaders shaking pom-poms.

Sometimes people call a wothless reformist party a wothless reformist party because that is exactly what it is. Stop trying to make this about vague generalities relating to arrogance or sectarianism. About the only thing that the participants on this forum are unanimous on is that the cpusa is just a misleadingly named advocacy group for the democratic party. Are you saying that this is incorrect?

[Blackscare]

Language please :)

Tread means to walk, retread in this context means to "go over again".


I appreciate the effort and intention but I don't think that the user in question was trying to spell "retard".

[ZeroNowhere]

You mangy retreads!


Every socialist group labels every other socialist group as either revisionist or ultra-leftist and claims every other group has failed, is failing, will fail because of this.
It reminds me of early Christianity and the way all groups labelled its opponents as heretics.
Rather, perhaps, imagining communist parties as failures and capitalists as successful is a part of capitalist ideology. This laziness/haziness prevents our seeing the amazing contradictions that we exist among and the realization that communism is and must also contains contradictions at every moment and turn.
Those who don't see and celebrate the victories of international communism are a gloomy lot, just as those who don't assail the tragedies and problems are just cheer-leaders shaking pom-poms.Ah, but, you see, these contradictions sublate themselves in their opposition to give rise to the true Party, which is ultimately formed by the working class in its instinctive movement, and hence due to the parallel postulate various socialist sects that oppose the independence and power of this Party prove themselves on the one hand to be not real Parties, but merely empty shills regurgitating rhetoric regardless of the realities of the real movement, and on the other to be in fact in opposition to The Party.
The attempts by these sects to proclaim themselves Parties remind me of the attempts of Satan to proclaim himself Lord, and just as much are condemned to failure against the omnipotent force of history.
Rather, perhaps the attempt to coat-tail the Democratic Party is a part of capitalist ideology. (Perhaps.) This coat-tailing may well manifest a failure to see the contradictions inherent to capitalism, at least insofar as such a failure is inherent to supporters of capitalism and capitalist political organizations in general.
Those who support the gains of capitalist political organizations (like, say, the Democrats) ought perhaps to contemplate why they do not simply join these organizations themselves, while those who make such support more or less their defining feature are quite clearly a bunch of retreads.

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't label them revisionist, (as this could be applied to anything) rather I would refer to them as Bourgeois Liberal reformists.

The communism that represented the interests of the proletariat is not to be found in the CPUSA. I suppose they carry the name for sheer historical purposes, much like the Italian PCI

[Philosopher Jay]

When I discussed issues with members 30 years ago, I found a diversity of opinions regarding the Democratic Party and many other issues. Mostly, I found a lot of dedicated, thoughtful, self-sacrificing and noble people. I also found these same characteristics with members of other socialist groups who refused to work the Democratic party out of revolutionary principles.
Regarding their working with Democrats, I do not find it sinful. To paraphrase Søren Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard): Work with Democrats, you will regret it, don't work with democrats, you will regret it. Work with Democrats or don't work with democrats, you will regret it.

[Lucretia]

When I discussed issues with members 30 years ago, I found a diversity of opinions regarding the Democratic Party and many other issues. Mostly, I found a lot of dedicated, thoughtful, self-sacrificing and noble people. I also found these same characteristics with members of other socialist groups who refused to work the Democratic party out of revolutionary principles.
Regarding their working with Democrats, I do not find it sinful. To paraphrase Søren Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard): Work with Democrats, you will regret it, don't work with democrats, you will regret it. Work with Democrats or don't work with democrats, you will regret it.

Kirkegaard did not even pretend to be a Marxist. He was a forerunner to modern-day "politically pragmatic" postmodernists -- a philosopher who dabbled in existentialism and German idealism. Not surprisingly, there is no class analysis in his political remarks. Why you, somebody presumably a revolutionary socialist, would quote that remark as having some nugget of truth is baffling.

It's not surprising you feel an affinity for Kirkegaard, since your praising the "diversity of opinions" you used to find among members (of what? the CPUSA?) strongly resembles the postmodern liberal politics of "multiculturalism" that views the welcoming of different ideas as a positive good in its own right. After all, as postmodernists would affirm, there is no Truth against which to make judgments that some views are wrong, so you just try to include as many views as possible so that people can feel included regardless of the content of their ideas. (As an aside: this is the argument of the Nichols article in the previous issue of the ISR which I criticized in a separate thread.)

The CPUSA is an irrelevant, spent force. It maintains the name of "communist" and name-drops Marx once in a while. But functionally, its politics are indistinguishable from the democrats. They make no secrets about this.

[DaringMehring]

Furthermore, even the phrase "working with" gives too much credit to the CPUSA re: the Democrats. Working with implies two separate entities with common goals uniting their forces in a temporary, practical alliance.

This is not the case with the CPUSA and the Democrats. The CP people are submerged into the Democrats. If the Democrats knew they were communists they would expel them. The Democratic Party has no use for the CP and views it as a toxic association. In the case of Rick Nagin's almost-successful run for City Council in Cleveland, which he lost by the slightest hair, the Democrats threw their support behind the Green candidate who was the eventual winner. After every promise, and a lifetime of sucking up, they still got burned.

And still they tail the Democrats. Their only meaningful work as an organization, is electoral work in support of the Democrats, and trying to justify that ideologically. It is no temporary tactical alliance. It is their way of life.

What you have is not "working with," it is anonymous working for.

[israeli-hellscape]

i am very torn about CPUSA.

i feel like they are very wishy-washy revisionists but also like they are thinking of the most plausible way they could make ANY influence. people are eager to laugh off radical communist thought. if they support obama, people may be a little more open to it. not that i condone their revisionism.

also...you MUST pay dues to the party. i know i couldn't afford what they ask. they have no system in place to ensure people of any class background can join.

[Lucretia]

also...you MUST pay dues to the party.

I think you just summed up why the leaders of the party haven't decided to fold and officially merge with the democrats.

It's amazing that people will actually be suckered into paying to be a democrat. :laugh:

[Commissar Rykov]

I think you just summed up why the leaders of the party haven't decided to fold and officially merge with the democrats.

It's amazing that people will actually be suckered into paying to be a democrat. :laugh:
Why give up that moneytrain? Pfft if the Democrats charged dues then the CPUSA would be there holding the moneybag.:lol:

[Pioneers_Violin]

Thanks for the interesting discussion about CPUSA.

Yes, they're horribly imperfect. Yes, they've been marginalized to nothingness and reduced to anonymously helping a party that apparently despises them.

This is the homeland of Capitalism and has been for a long time. The people here have been heavily propagandized against Socialism and Communism for many decades and until recently Capitalism "seemed" to work pretty well according to most folks, even those that are the most heavily exploited. Now that's successful Propaganda!

This is about what one would expect would happen to an openly Communist party under such circumstances.


But I still seek the answer to the question: "Are they doing the best they can?"
And more to the point, is the CPUSA worthy of our support, warts and all?
I've read through their Program and Constitution and can't come to any serious disagreement with their stated principles.

Is there a more viable alternative? Nobody here seems to have mentioned one.

Or, failing a more promising alternative, does CPUSA have any hope of becoming relevant?


We need to put aside our differences if we wish to accomplish anything and sometimes we have to deal with people we'd rather not. Could this be what CPUSA is doing?
Or are they just as they appear, as many seem to think, a defeated party of the past?

Personally, I'm willing to put aside nearly any differences if I feel we're accomplishing something worthwhile. If we sit here and throw eggs at one another, only the Fascists will win.



PS. I felt Webb didn't do badly with that jackal Beck. It's easy to say "I could've done better" but could I? or anyone? It was on Beck's turf and on his terms and Beck was being a complete ASS the whole way through with his loaded questions and zigzagging topics. Sinking to his level won't help and trying to reason with a crazy lunatic like Beck was a wasted effort.
Webb did as well as anyone could in countering that maniac at every turn but did anyone notice?
I say Webb won just for keeping his cool during Beck's nonstop foaming-at-the-mouth tirade.

[Lucretia]

Thanks for the interesting discussion about CPUSA.

Yes, they're horribly imperfect. Yes, they've been marginalized to nothingness and reduced to anonymously helping a party that apparently despises them.

This is the homeland of Capitalism and has been for a long time. The people here have been heavily propagandized against Socialism and Communism for many decades and until recently Capitalism "seemed" to work pretty well according to most folks, even those that are the most heavily exploited. Now that's successful Propaganda!

That's no excuse. There are plenty of left parties in the US that do not act as boosters for the democrats. A party with the history and theoretical resources as rich as the CPUSA should be the last to fall into this snare.


But I still seek the answer to the question: "Are they doing the best they can?"You are posing this like a philosophical question. As I mentioned, there are plenty of left groups in the USA doing far more important work than just shilling for the democrats. Many of them even adhere to tendencies I find anathema, but their work is still better than the CPUSA's. So is the CPUSA doing the best it can? I don't know: it depends on how you judge the capacity of its members. Maybe they are or may be they aren't. But I think the question is largely irrelevant.


And more to the point, is the CPUSA worthy of our support, warts and all? I've read through their Program and Constitution and can't come to any serious disagreement with their stated principles.The CPUSA is worthy of somebody's support to the extent that the Democrats are worthy of support. Because supporting the CPUSA literally means just supporting the Democrats. This is why it's important not just to read what a party says about itself, but look at what it's actually doing. I'm sure Pol Pot published some glowing list of principles also, but did that mean that leftists should have supported him?


Is there a more viable alternative? Nobody here seems to have mentioned one.Let's see here. The ISO, the LRP, the PSL -- hell, even the RCP, even as cultish as it has become -- all do things more valuable than what the CPUSA is doing, and in the process are demonstrating that there is an alternative.