Why does everyone put down the CPUSA

[Comrade1988]

It seems like alot of People put down and disrespect the CPSUSA thinking there not Socialists and Communists because of their short term goals.. The thing is the USA is soooo Capitalistic and Right Wing that you gotta be real instead of "revolutionary".. Joseph Stalin told the CPUSA to infiltrate the Democratic Party and Vote Democratic to change it from the inside.. instead of being armchair revolutionarys they are actually real and in reality.. this isnt the 18th century where revolution was possible.. the Government has all the best weapons and this is a very different world then what it used to be.. therefore revolution is impossible other than changing it at the voting booth.. they are very much still Socialists and Communists its just they realize things have changed and thats why they have short term goals that way when the short term goals have been achieved then they can change things.. it seems like people here want a party that just hangs out in a resturant and spouts Revolution and then does nothing.. there not like that.. unlike a few armchair revolutionarys they actually live in the real world.. So the CPUSA is still very much Red and it has the most Members of any Communist Party in the USA and they use their logic and reason.. instead of spouting stupid things that wont work

[PhoenixAsh]

o boy...you again....this is going to be fun.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, the Communist Party is still red because it has the biggest membership and doesn't spout stupid shit that doesn't work...like erm...communism?

How long til this one gets restricted?

[Deicide]

Don't restrict him yet please :crying: My popcorn is not ready.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The CPUSA is just such an easy target for communists, but in the end their politics aren´t any worse than that of most reformist left parties who claim to be communist or socialist.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Mainly because they are reformist democrats but there are many other reasons as well.

Thread deja vu man.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

[Ilyich]

The CPUSA is just such an easy target for communists, but in the end their politics aren´t any worse than that of most reformist left parties who claim to be communist or socialist.

I have to disagree with you there. There are a couple social democratic reformist parties in the the United States that are actually marginally better than the CPUSA. The Socialist Party, USA and the Peace and Freedom Party, for example, both call for a break with the Democratic Party.

[Comrade1988]

Why would I get restricted? its just a question.. is that how this works? I thought they didnt allow Fascists on here... yet it seems like there are alot of fascists on here if I cant ask a simple question... if thats the way it is I will go somewhere else.. oh and if I do get restricted for some stupid reason i will just open up another account... but really restricting? for what? thats very fascistic

[Comrade1988]

why would I be restricted? thats stupid.. all because im asking a question?.. I thought they didnt allow fascists on here?.. yet im getting suggestions that i might be restricted.. thats fascistic... if I do get restricted I will just make a new profile .. but really thats just stupid.. if thats the way it is I will just go somewhere eelse and make a new profile

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes the CPUSA chose the Democrats and consequentially not embarassing the Dixiecrats over anti-racist struggle and trying to unionize the South. Their pre-WWII work in building up a multi-ethnic struggle against black racism was a high-water point for American M-L and the CP threw it away when the Comintern decided Russia's post-war international dealings with the US were more important than local class struggles.

Thinking you can "infiltrate" a tool of the rich such as the Democratic Party is like a remora sucker-fish under a shark's fin fooling himself into thinking he's leading the shark, not the other way around. And so how did the CP's "infiltration" go? Well first they cheered when the Democrats repressed Trotskyist groups and then the CPers quickly found themselves in front of hostile politicians denouncing them while Feds went to their jobs to intimidate their allies at work. Maybe if the CP hadn't first burned all their bridges with other forces in the workers movement, then if they hadn't secondarily lost credibility by then ditching their independence for popular-frontism, then maybe they would have still had some allies when the hammer came down on the US radical left after WWII.

Not only were the CP mistaken, but these mistakes had lasting impacts for revolutionaries and the working class movement. The one organization really making inroads drawing together the anti-racist struggle and the class struggle ends up throwing anti-racism under the bus and discrediting Communism as a viable way to fight racism until basically the Black Panthers came along. The Union movement was able to use McCarthyism to push out not only CP but all radicals and a wedge was put between radical politics and the class struggle - a wedge that is only now beginning to loosen.

When people began to radicalize again, the CP was totally discredited and so most turned to nationalism or maoism in the 1960s/70s. Even now, where do you think the knee-jerk skepticism of "Vanguard" organizations or the seriousness of revolutionaries comes from or even having organizations at all? The CP didn't just make mistakes, they (and the rest of the left that tied themselves to Russia or China rather than class struggle) ended up salting the earth for future generations of radicals.

[Azraella]

The CPUSA is pretty pathetic to be honest. If I had to work with a reformist party I'd work with the SPUSA which is much better than the CPUSA

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The CPUSA from everything I've seen was once a legitimately radical party but allowed its alliance with the USSR to undermine both its power and credibility as a working class organization.

They have a cool take on the hammer and sickle though :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/CP_logo.png

[Yuppie Grinder]

The CPUSA in the distant past were a genuine worker's party. That time is long gone. They are communist in name only. They're democrats dressed up as Stalinists dressed up as Marxists.

[Comrade1988]

as far as persecuting trotskyites I dont really care about that.. actually I think they should have done that to the trotskyites because there not really Marxist Leninist and reformism is more realistic then "revolution".. if you wanna be a revolutionary thats fine but if your just sitting around talking about revolution and passing newspapers around then your not a revolutionary... to me the russian revolution was revolutionary sitting around and being armchair revolutionaries isnt revolutionary at all.. im a reformist because I realize revolution will never happen in this day and age

[Comrade1988]

I advocate peace not revolution.. there is a better and peaceful way

[marl]

as far as persecuting trotskyites I dont really care about that.. actually I think they should have done that to the trotskyites because there not really Marxist Leninist and reformism is more realistic then "revolution".. if you wanna be a revolutionary thats fine but if your just sitting around talking about revolution and passing newspapers around then your not a revolutionary... to me the russian revolution was revolutionary sitting around and being armchair revolutionaries isnt revolutionary at all.. im a reformist because I realize revolution will never happen in this day and age

You realize that the CPUSA actively campaigns for Obama when they should be going around, doing outreach with workers, and building class consciousness, right?

Reformism isn't realistic at all, you're simply choosing your next oppressor.

[Raúl Duke]

Because the CPUSA is mostly "communist in name only."
Their praxis ultimately centers around supporting the Democrats under this notion that if the GOP wins or something "the US will fall to fascism!1111! ZOMG!1!" when, under closer observation, the post-9/11 democrats are not skittish at passing laws and enacting policies that differ from the GOP in this respect ("tespass law," indifinate detention, drones in the sky, etc) or do much for the benefit of the working class,
Basically, the fall into the liberal trap of "lesser of 2 evils;" they're nothing more than red-dressed liberals/democrats.

[x359594]

The CPUSA of today is the not party that emerged from the amalgamation of the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party of America in 1921. Its militant period lasted from then until WWII after which it steadily moved in a reformist direction so that by today it's a social democratic party that tails the Democratic Party for all intents and purposes.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I advocate peace not revolution.. there is a better and peaceful way

Peaceful revolutions have never, not once, in history, worked. The bourgeoisie aren't going to allow the working class to simply slip in some reforms and then take over, that is pure idealism. In fact, most dramatic reforms, even in America, have been the result of violent pressure from the working class. You're view of the Russian revolution is simply inaccurate and an insult to all those comrades whom gave their lives, their blood, their limbs, etc. to overthrow the Tsar and his allies. How about you stop listening to John Lennon and start reading some Marx and Lenin.

[Goblin]

why should he get restricted? the guy is obviously a noob.

the cpusa supported obama. nuff said!

[Krano]

Revolution is impossible
Heard of the arab spring?

[Susurrus]

I advocate peace not revolution.. there is a better and peaceful way

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution."
-Marx

"We must not depict socialism as if socialists will bring it to us on a plate all nicely dressed. That will never happen. Not a single problem of the class struggle has ever been solved in history except by violence. When violence is exercised by the working people, by the mass of exploited against the exploiters — then we are for it! We shall not achieve socialism without a struggle."
-Lenin

So tell me, how are you a Marxist Leninist again?

[The Young Pioneer]

I can't speak for others, but the reason I put them down is because I was a member in the past and know how things are with them. Not impressed.

Though, it seems others here who haven't been involved with them (I assume) also have a pretty good idea of how CPUSA is. Won't do you any good for me to repeat exactly what's already been said in this thread. :lol:

Welcome to the forum, Comrade1988. Hope you get to learn some good stuff around here and don't get restricted. I think you're honestly just curious and new and that's okay. :)

[Tim Cornelis]

why should he get restricted? the guy is obviously a noob.

the cpusa supported obama. nuff said!

A troll more like it.

[blake 3:17]

From a recent article representing the Communist Party of Canada's position on the CPUSA:


The concerns raised have dealt with a number of interrelated issues, such as various statements issued by the CPUSA dealing with international questions, especially on the Palestinian struggle, and on the U.S. wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan; on trade union policy which many feel is insufficiently critical of class collaborationism in the leadership of the AFL‑CIO (which has a direct bearing on Canada given the large presence of AFL‑CIO affiliates in the Canadian Labour Congress); on the assessment of the role and class position of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party and the absence of any independent electoral presence of the CPUSA in its own name; on various pronouncements by leading figures of the CPUSA on changing the party name, in describing the multi‑trillion dollar government bail‑outs as "a dose of socialism", etc.; and in organizational decisions to cease the print editions of People's Weekly World and Political Affairs, the layoffs of Party and YCL organizing staff, the internet‑based 'open door' approach to party recruitment, etc.

Although deeply concerned about many of these developments, our Central Committee has until now refrained from comment. However, in light of the publication earlier this year of the article "A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century" by CPUSA Chair Sam Webb, our Central Committee finds it necessary to clarify our Party's views on certain critical questions which have been raised. Although the various theses presented in this article refer, in the first place, to a proposed reorientation of the CPUSA itself, its title and text read as if these ideas should form the 'template' of the political approach of Communist parties in general, or certainly at least in other advanced capitalist countries such as Canada. This assumption was confirmed when comments from other fraternal parties were actively solicited by the CPUSA, a highly unusual practice.

We are aware of the formal responses given to this article by the Communist Parties of Greece (KKE) and Mexico. Our Party is in substantive agreement with the main criticisms of this document expressed by these two parties. We consider that the political line advanced in "A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century" constitutes a fundamental departure from Marxist‑Leninist theory and practice. The pursuit of such an approach will objectively lead to the liquidation of the CPUSA as a revolutionary party of the working class in that country. Source: http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/Pv01oc11.html#ILESSONS

I was surprised years ago by some of Webb's statements, which seemed to essentially give a left cover to Democratic Party reformism-without-reforms, something distinct from reformism.

A new mass party of the Left in the US will by necessity involve large numbers of people and organizations close to or a part of the Democratic Party.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Heard of the arab spring?

That was not a Socialist revolution; it was not really borne out of a two-class struggle. Granted, there was an element of class conflict, but it was a largely bourgeois-liberal 'revolution'.

Indeed, the Arab Spring seems to have lost a lot of momentum and gotten ground down into 'civil war'/long term conflict. Never ends well.

[Agathor]

Revleft's position on CPUSA is uniformally silly. I'm not a marxist-leninist and I pay little attention to the death-styles of the world's beleaguered Leninist parties, but it's clear that their support for the Democrats is essentially the 'lesser of two evils' line, which is recognized as obvious by every sane leftist and almost nobody on Revleft. The most the CPUSA is guilty of is over-stating the benefits of the Democrats versus the Republicans.

As far as the prats on this site are concerned, it's impossible to vote Democrat without supporting the Democrats. It's amusing, because if you look at the various polls taken on the subject, barely anybody here believes that they, or anyone, will live to see the red militia garrisoned in the White House, yet voting for the Democrats remains incomprehensible.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Revleft's position on CPUSA is uniformally silly. I'm not a marxist-leninist and I pay little attention to the death-styles of the world's beleaguered Leninist parties, but it's clear that their support for the Democrats is essentially the 'lesser of two evils' line, which is recognized as obvious by every sane leftist and almost nobody on Revleft. The most the CPUSA is guilty of is over-stating the benefits of the Democrats versus the Republicans.

As far as the prats on this site are concerned, it's impossible to vote Democrat without supporting the Democrats. It's amusing, because if you look at the various polls taken on the subject, barely anybody here believes that they, or anyone, will live to see the red militia garrisoned in the White House, yet voting for the Democrats remains incomprehensible.

I would beg to differ. The Dems and the "politics of lesser evilism" is precisely what's holding back the class struggle in the US. The Dems are famous for co-opting and marginalyzing worker's struggles. They are truly the "graveyard of social movements"

The way forward, the way to develop class consciousness is to resolutely break from the despicable nest of vipers known as the Democratic Party.

Jimmy Higgins explained the treasonous nature of the CPUSA very well.

[Agathor]

I would beg to differ. The Dems and the "politics of lesser evilism" is precisely what's holding back the class struggle in the US. The Dems are famous for co-opting and marginalyzing worker's struggles. They are truly the "graveyard of social movements"

The way forward, the way to develop class consciousness is to resolutely break from the despicable nest of vipers known as the Democratic Party.

Jimmy Higgins explained the treasonous nature of the CPUSA very well.

You're getting a little confused. Nobody is arguing that we should co-ordinate our activism with the Democrats or field candidates in their primaries. In the four years between elections we should do everything we can to hurt the Democrats. But when the four years are up and the man with the saw wants to know whether he should amputate a toe or a foot, wince, give the obvious answer and then get back to work. Elections are a minor part of politics anyway.

[Prometeo liberado]

I advocate peace not revolution.. there is a better and peaceful way

OK! Commence with the banning! Hippie.

[Magón]

I thought RevLeft policy was to at least restrict SocDem's, since they don't advocate a revolutionary process?

[Prometeo liberado]

This is stil REVleft, right?

[Agathor]

I thought RevLeft policy was to at least restrict SocDem's, since they don't advocate a revolutionary process?

An overthrow of one class by another constitutes a revolution regardless of the method.

[Krano]

That was not a Socialist revolution; it was not really borne out of a two-class struggle. Granted, there was an element of class conflict, but it was a largely bourgeois-liberal 'revolution'.

Indeed, the Arab Spring seems to have lost a lot of momentum and gotten ground down into 'civil war'/long term conflict. Never ends well.
Well Egypt is trying to have a proper revolution now that the military is in power.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You're getting a little confused. Nobody is arguing that we should co-ordinate our activism with the Democrats or field candidates in their primaries. In the four years between elections we should do everything we can to hurt the Democrats. But when the four years are up and the man with the saw wants to know whether he should amputate a toe or a foot, wince, give the obvious answer and then get back to work. Elections are a minor part of politics anyway.

Bourgeois elections are a media manipulated crock.The meaning they hold for socialists is educative-its one of the few rimes the depoliticized US working class is thinking about politics. We can intervene and teach people about socialism

Both Obama and Romney are "men with saws". Obama has overseen dramatic attacks on the US working class. Yes, Romney is possibly worse. His open homophobia is truly repugnant and he sees to be "Scott Walker wreit large", he'll do what Walker did nation wide. The answer to this though isn't to subordinate the needs of the working class to that of a reactionary candidate like Obama but to open up an independent struggle. That's Marxism 101 (and I'm not talking about "Marxism-Leninism")

We can't say, "yes, Obama is horrible, but we must support him because he's marginally less horrible than the other guy.Obama is the guy who signed the NDAA, "saved" the auto industry on the backs of the working class, over saw viscous police repression of Ocuppy, bailed out finance capital, etc. Oh, but his jobs bill...

The politics of lesser evilism moves the debate further and further to the right. The reason the US doesn't have national healthcare, isn't because of the republicans, its because of the Dems. Canada, despite its problems has healthcare because a social democratic party, the NDP, specifically to fight for it.

[blake 3:17]

You're getting a little confused. Nobody is arguing that we should co-ordinate our activism with the Democrats or field candidates in their primaries. In the four years between elections we should do everything we can to hurt the Democrats. But when the four years are up and the man with the saw wants to know whether he should amputate a toe or a foot, wince, give the obvious answer and then get back to work. Elections are a minor part of politics anyway.

Hmmmmmmmmmm? The big problem I see with this is is that Party machine knows it has your vote, so they don't even have to try to appease the left, the unions, the movements. In Canada we've had some of the same problems with loyalism to the NDP.

There's a link here to a recent speech by Sam Webb -- going through it I felt like I agreed with about a third of it, and totally disagreed with another third. Seems like Right Browderism to me.

[Goblin]

A troll more like it.
Too early bro! Give him some more time.

[Magón]

An overthrow of one class by another constitutes a revolution regardless of the method.

Except the point of this forum as far as I'm aware (outside Opposing Ideologies,) is to talk about revolutionary means, outside of reformist/SocDem, "Let's vote in Socialism." People advocating such are usually restricted from what I've seen.

So why isn't this guy? He's stated clearly in this thread he's not for revolution, but some kind of vague "peace". And that's he's reformist. As far as I'm aware, this forum doesn't identify reformists as revolutionary.

[blake 3:17]

Canada, despite its problems has healthcare because a social democratic party, the NDP, specifically to fight for it.

They haven't been actually been trying very hard on this for a long time. The NDP can open up some ideological and political space. The Tories, for the first time in the [ast hundred years, have managed to out-Right the Republicans on a few issues. They are far tamer on women's issues. They recognize an attack on abortion rights would be political suicide here.

[Raúl Duke]

Revleft's position on CPUSA is uniformally silly. I'm not a marxist-leninist and I pay little attention to the death-styles of the world's beleaguered Leninist parties, but it's clear that their support for the Democrats is essentially the 'lesser of two evils' line, which is recognized as obvious by every sane leftist and almost nobody on Revleft. The most the CPUSA is guilty of is over-stating the benefits of the Democrats versus the Republicans.

As far as the prats on this site are concerned, it's impossible to vote Democrat without supporting the Democrats. It's amusing, because if you look at the various polls taken on the subject, barely anybody here believes that they, or anyone, will live to see the red militia garrisoned in the White House, yet voting for the Democrats remains incomprehensible.

How can you be certain that some of the members here are not already voting the Democrats in certain electoral practices?

That's not the issue really at hand. In fact, I don't care if revolutionary leftists go vote the "lesser evil" in a personal basis (I do find it problematic if they go "endorse" mainstream electoral parties, but ultimately none of my business).

But I do have a problem when a purportedly radical/leftist party focuses its primary praxis on "voting the lesser evil," and that's the matter at hand here. That's not what a left party/political organization should be doing, and if they do they aren't (and shouldn't be calling themselves) a radical leftist (i.e. communist, etc) organization. When an organization's primary form of action is electoral activism (particularly for mainstream parties), it ceases to be potentially radical.

[The Intransigent Faction]

this isnt the 18th century where revolution was possible

That right there is your first problem. I'm not even sure I should dignify it with a response other than to say: of course it is possible!


revolution is impossible other than changing it at the voting booth

See above---and that is not a revolution.


it has the most Members of any Communist Party in the USA

Pardon my language, but how the fuck does that matter? Every single worker in the United States could be enthusiastic members of the CPUSA, and endorsing Obama would still do nothing other than make them a stale joke.

I don't know at what point you expect the "short term" strategy of endorsing a capitalist leader/party should be stopped in favour of an actually proletarian line, but progress in both theory and practice is like a boulder that won't move unless it is pushed. How far right of a party would you be willing to support as long as it is "the lesser evil", before realizing that this compromises any claim of being "communist" because you don't contribute anything close to a communist understanding of America's politics or any activity that even irritates the ruling class? There's no point in saying "Oh let's not advocate revolution yet because people won't agree".

[Soviet New Man]

I was a Member of the CPUSA for awhile the leadership is nothing but Democrats,they dont even try to act Communist or Marxist Socialist..when I met with the Representative he was totally Democrat.. talking about how we should support democrats and how their for peace and all that crap.. I disagreed and told him my views and he acted like I was a Radical.. Anyways he told me I was a Member and gave me a Membership Card.. I didnt do anything as their was no Club where I live but the Card was cool.. if your just looking to join just to get the card go for it..but the leadership isnt Communist I remember when I met the Represenative I was thinking " this guy is a leader in THE Communist Party USA?" Im sure there are Members that are Communist.. Just not in any Leadership Roles

[Comrade1988]

I guess im not wanted here... im sorry for getting you all upset it wont happen again as im not returning back here

[Lucretia]

Revleft's position on CPUSA is uniformally silly. I'm not a marxist-leninist and I pay little attention to the death-styles of the world's beleaguered Leninist parties, but it's clear that their support for the Democrats is essentially the 'lesser of two evils' line, which is recognized as obvious by every sane leftist and almost nobody on Revleft. The most the CPUSA is guilty of is over-stating the benefits of the Democrats versus the Republicans.

As far as the prats on this site are concerned, it's impossible to vote Democrat without supporting the Democrats. It's amusing, because if you look at the various polls taken on the subject, barely anybody here believes that they, or anyone, will live to see the red militia garrisoned in the White House, yet voting for the Democrats remains incomprehensible.

The lesser-of-two-evils approach to politics is tantamount to supporting the democratic party. It is basically grounds for being restricted on this forum, and justifiably so. It is the most toxic and destructive idea to the rebuilding of a revolutionary left in the United States. The democratic party is a capitalist party, supported by, staffed by, funded by, and indistinguishable from the bourgeoisie. Supporting them by voting for their officials is a betrayal of the class struggle.

[Lucretia]

You're getting a little confused. Nobody is arguing that we should co-ordinate our activism with the Democrats or field candidates in their primaries. In the four years between elections we should do everything we can to hurt the Democrats. But when the four years are up and the man with the saw wants to know whether he should amputate a toe or a foot, wince, give the obvious answer and then get back to work. Elections are a minor part of politics anyway.

When one of your primary political considerations is whether the democrat or the republican wins the next presidential election, you necessarily coordinate your political agenda and activities with their electoral and political success. No, this doesn't involve direct communication with actual democrats--it's more of an indirect kind of coordination done implicitly. But I don't see what significance that has to the overall analysis.

(As a side note, I would like to mention that this Agathor fellow sounds an awful lot like restricted poster with the username NGNM85. Perhaps the admins should check to determine whether these might be the same person.)

And since Agathor's argument is identical to NGNM's, I would just repost what I explained to him in a different thread:


Yet the relationship between grassroots politics and electoral politics lies at the heart of the entire framework of your argument. You want to claim that supporting a bourgeois politician with your vote is totally consistent with then fighting that politician at the grassroots level, but then when pressed as to why so few people engage in this kind of "consistent" behavior, you just want to pass over the issue in silence.

Analyzing *why* so few people do both says a good deal about both forms of activity, for phenomena can often only be understood relationally, by virtue of viewing them in connection with other parts of society or politics or what have you. My argument about why few people do both is that bourgeois electoral politics resulting from and in turn propping up the capitalist state is by its very nature antagonistic to political struggles by which people from the ground up are trying to reconstruct society so as to eliminate class exploitation and oppression, and ultimately the state itself.

This is evident when you consider how working against the president, his political party, and interests they represent places a set of demands on activists that is by default in tension with, antagonistic to, the demands of wanting to see that president defeat his "worse evil" electoral adversary. So, for example, we get the following dilemma: As activists interested in creating a classless society, should we devote every last ounce of energy, every second of our time to fighting Obama because of his flagrant protecting of banks and capitalists? Or should we take a more "balanced" approach, muting our criticism of the president by also attacking his opponent Mitt Romney -- and pointing out how he would coddle business interests even more? Or what if the race is really close and I'm in a swing state? Should we not attack the president at all, lest we tip the electoral scales to Romney's favor? Maybe in the next demonstration against the bank bailouts, we should only hold signs criticizing Romney, and only invite speakers who won't mention Obama.

Notice how once we drift from actual socialist politics to the bourgeois electoral arena, we are already thinking in an alienated way, in a way where we are no longer basing our criticism on the goal of achieving socialism and fighting representatives of the ruling class, but instead on the toxic "horserace" thinking that the capitalist media tries to brainwash people into accepting as the only form of politics? In the above example, we have somebody who wants to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state, yet is actively considering ways of protecting a capitalist politician. It's simply absurd.

This is called a "class analysis" and it used to be a staple of anarchism decades ago, before it drowned out by the mad dash of bourgeois middle-class "anarchist" lifestylists flocking to Internet message boards.

You don't defeat capitalism, or the state dominated by it, by electorally supporting capitalists. To do so demonstrates just how inverted, how alienated and alienating, is the thinking encouraged by the bourgeois electoral political process. It's not YOUR process, and it can never be YOUR process so long as capitalism persists. It's a process thoroughly dominated by the ruling class, and used by the ruling class to get otherwise well meaning people like you to become their little puppets. As we can see, it's a very effective process.

[Ocean Seal]

Scumbag revleft expects communists to be communists.

[Deicide]

This guy must of been asleep for most, if not all, of the 8 years he was learning about Communism.

Or he's just a troll.

[Per Levy]

I'm not a marxist-leninist and I pay little attention to the death-styles of the world's beleaguered Leninist parties, but it's clear that their support for the Democrats is essentially the 'lesser of two evils' line, which is recognized as obvious by every sane leftist and almost nobody on Revleft.

how is supporting the "lesser evil" a sane position? supporting the lesser evil means mostly to sow the soil for the bigger evil. when the spd(socialdem) in 1998 won the elections it was the lesser evil and it promised to get rid of attacks on the welfare state, instead the biggest attack on the welfarestate and workers did follow and on this the cdu(conservative) could easaly build upon their anti-social policies. its the same in the uk and in the usa as well.

lesser evilism isnt a good tactic, class struggle is though.

[Per Levy]

I guess im not wanted here... im sorry for getting you all upset it wont happen again as im not returning back here

by all means stay, but stop acting like this. you're a reformist as you are saying yourself and you come on to a revolutionary leftist forum and ask why a reformist party(at best) like the cpusa is hardly liked. you should expect some critic of the cpusa in a thread like this, the same goes for your reformism. be able to take critical posts.

[hashem]

CPUSA is "brother" of criminals such as Peoples Democratic party of Afganestan, Tudeh party of Iran, "communist" parties of Iraq and Syria and ... (let alone rulers of the eastern bloc). what can be expected from a such party?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Okay, let me get this straight.

First you make this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-any-true-t172013/index.html?t=172013)thread asking if there are any "real' communists here. Accusing most if not all of us of being "Petit-bourgeois teenagers and lumpenproletariat druggies who wouls never make it in a socialist or Communist Society"

THEN you make this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-you-t172043/index.html?t=172043) thread asking just how revolutionary we really are. Accusing us of being reformists.


THEN you make this thread which we currently are on. Asking us why are we so hard on the CPUSA and how come we want revolution and not reform. After you made a whole thread about how we are all reformists, now you accuse us of being too revolutionary?

To quote Mr. Ghostface Killah: "C'mon son"


Also, what makes you even more hilarious to me is you considering yourself a Marxist-Leninist, then going and accusing Stalin of "fascism".

Do you know what Marxism-Leninism is? You should since on your intro you stated that you have been one for 8 years. In all that time you haven't learned what fascism is and what it isn't?

So we can conclude that either:

A) You are a troll.

B) You haven't been a communist for 8 years, and in reality you are beginner. (Which is okay. If this is the case then say so. So we can help you learn. You won't get mocked I promise.)

or

C) You are a really, REALLY, unintelligent person who after being a "communist" for 8 years cannot grasp the basic fundamentals.


I'm leaning towards option A.


So, once again...

http://media1.podbean.com/pb/2709b5f9a8f185218b477047841b86f7/4fc0f3ef/blogs/23652/archive/GhostfaceKillahCmonSON.jpg

[Prometeo liberado]

Comrade1988, I don't understand why you just don't cut out the middle man and just join the left wing of the Democratic party. There are the Democratic Socialist with Bernie Sanders who are registered Democrats that work right out in the open and don't have to be pestered with these filthy ideas of revolution or accountability. Just a thought,......comrade.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And since Agathor's argument is identical to NGNM's, I would just repost what I explained to him in a different thread:

That's because they are both in favour of parliamentary politics.

Ah, yes, the problem for socialists is to learn how to win bourgeois elections (Agathor suggested so in a previous thread some time back). :rolleyes:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It seems like alot of People put down and disrespect the CPSUSA thinking there not Socialists and Communists because of their short term goals.. The thing is the USA is soooo Capitalistic and Right Wing that you gotta be real instead of "revolutionary".. Joseph Stalin told the CPUSA to infiltrate the Democratic Party and Vote Democratic to change it from the inside.. instead of being armchair revolutionarys they are actually real and in reality.. this isnt the 18th century where revolution was possible.. the Government has all the best weapons and this is a very different world then what it used to be.. therefore revolution is impossible other than changing it at the voting booth.. they are very much still Socialists and Communists its just they realize things have changed and thats why they have short term goals that way when the short term goals have been achieved then they can change things.. it seems like people here want a party that just hangs out in a resturant and spouts Revolution and then does nothing.. there not like that.. unlike a few armchair revolutionarys they actually live in the real world.. So the CPUSA is still very much Red and it has the most Members of any Communist Party in the USA and they use their logic and reason.. instead of spouting stupid things that wont work
A few comments. Most people on this forum are self-proclaimed revolutionaries. The CPUSA has for many decades been anti-revolutionary. Supporting the Dems is a completely dead-end strategy. Their "short-term goals" since the mid-1930s have been to support the Democratic Party. This has become an extremely long short-term, don't you think?

Supporting the Dems is actually worse than "doing nothing." The Dems already have far too much credibility as "friends" of the worker and the downtrodden. The job of socialists is to expose the Dems as the bourgeois, murderous class enemy that they are.

And don't run and hide, comrade -- you have a bunch to learn, stay with us and argue.

[Agathor]

That's because they are both in favour of parliamentary politics.

Ah, yes, the problem for socialists is to learn how to win bourgeois elections (Agathor suggested so in a previous thread some time back). :rolleyes:

My argument was the "bourgeois elections" is a bullshit term that leftists use to explain-away their failure to win office.

[Azraella]

My argument was the "bourgeois elections" is a bullshit term that leftists use to explain-away their failure to win office.

Not all of us share your... enthusiasm... for electoral politics. Let's assume a rather leftist politcian could win political office here in the US. We still have Republicans and the more conservative Democrats to try and beat for any radical policies to get made. I could even see the left wing of the Democrats voting against those policies never mind that the right has a pretty hard grasp on the the politics here and would be an impediment towards any progress on things like women's rights or queer rights(which while seperated from economics, I believe that all of these struggles are inter-related.)

[Lucretia]

My argument was the "bourgeois elections" is a bullshit term that leftists use to explain-away their failure to win office.

Why do I get the impression that you have no real comprehension of the Marxist critique of electoral politics (and the state to which said officials are elected)?

[DaringMehring]

My argument was the "bourgeois elections" is a bullshit term that leftists use to explain-away their failure to win office.

You know how much money and apparatus it takes to win office?

A "bourgeois" amount.

[Igor]

You know how much money and apparatus it takes to win office?

A "bourgeois" amount.

Not every parliament in every country is as ridiculously dominated by filthy rich people and the capital as the United States, you know. It's not really at all rare for people to get elected in Europe with pretty small campaign funding with a good mix of luck and knowing what you do.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I advocate peace not revolution.. there is a better and peaceful way
You are a leninist?



here's some basic lenin.


But what is overlooked or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and “alienating itself more and more from it", it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this “alienation”.

The end of the very first part of State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4)



there was also something about the only reason to participate in bourgeois parliament is to destroy it. forget the source on that one.



but.... back to your first post as well. so what if the gov't has the best guns. guns dont stop or create social upheaval.


and so what if stalin told the CP to 'infiltrate' the democrats. stalin was pretty shitty at times on foreign policy.

[DaringMehring]

Not every parliament in every country is as ridiculously dominated by filthy rich people and the capital as the United States, you know. It's not really at all rare for people to get elected in Europe with pretty small campaign funding with a good mix of luck and knowing what you do.

You're from Finland I see. Congratulations -- I wish my country's politics were more like Finland.

But in capitalism there is an ecosystem. The USA is the center of money, and power in the world right now. Finland is a small, weak, backwater.

So US elections are more completely dominated by capital than Finnish elections. Capital creates its own self-governance. I'm sure in Finland, if there were large Finnish banks and numerous overseas Finnish enterprises etc. -- bigger capital -- it would be similar.

Even in the USA, if you move to some isolated backwater town, or go for a low-level enough position, you can somewhat escape the power of capital in elections (though you still have to overcome the Party-system labels). But... that is precisely because those places and positions are unimportant to capital, much like... (gasp) (cough) Finland...

[Agathor]

You know how much money and apparatus it takes to win office?

A "bourgeois" amount.

During the 1930s the British Communist Party was better funded than the Labour and Liberal Parties because they were getting money from Stalin. If money is directly convertible into votes we should have seen hundreds of Communist MPs between the wars.

Money is important in politics but not for the reasons you think. Through advertising, parties buy degrees of popularity for themselves and unpopularity for their opponents. This has nothing to do with the parliamentary system: it's just advertising. A cash-strapped revolutionary organization would have to overcome this in the same way that a parliamentary one would. America is slightly different because some of its states have set up obstructive barriers to third parties, but if you get a few people interested these laws wouldn't be difficult to get rid of. Far more important concessions have been won.

The bourgeois media is far more important than campaign finance, but again, it has nothing to do with the electoral system. It would smear revolutionary groups as it smears parliamentary ones.

If universal suffrage was unimportant the bourgeoisie would not have fought against it for a hundred years and only begun granting concessions when they were terrified that one day we were going to murder them. Like Alexander II said about serfdom: 'abolish it from above before it abolishes itself from below'.

There are good arguments against my position (although apparently not on Revleft). I don't agree with them but I can't refute them either. However, a very basic moral principle is that you don't resort to violence until all peaceful methods have been extinguished. Hasn't happened.

[Agathor]

(As a side note, I would like to mention that this Agathor fellow sounds an awful lot like restricted poster with the username NGNM85. Perhaps the admins should check to determine whether these might be the same person.)

Just saw this crap. This NGNM85 is from Boston, I am clearly from the UK. He is an Anarchist, a quick scan of my recent post makes it obvious that I am a Democratic Socialist.

We aren't the only people who think this site is full of loons and halfwits by the way.

[Geiseric]

The CPUSA are petit "progressive," bourgeois assholes who dick ride the democratic party. They have no right to use "communist," as it was in the period of 1918-1925 when the parties were formed, but the purges killed or kicked out the best elements of those parties worldwide which left the shell of the stalin era communist parties which were just used for foreign policy. At world war 2 they gave aid to resistance fighters which was cool as long as they weren't bourgeois as well, but in the late 1920s and early 1930s comintern was completely incapible of pushing for world revolution.

[Lucretia]

Just saw this crap. This NGNM85 is from Boston, I am clearly from the UK. He is an Anarchist, a quick scan of my recent post makes it obvious that I am a Democratic Socialist.

We aren't the only people who think this site is full of loons and halfwits by the way.

I am confused: is somebody forcing you to post here? Or do you think that you are bringing us the Good News of electoral reformism for the first time (as if we haven't had it crammed down our throats our while life and rejected it after a lot of thought)? Either way it seems you're wasting both our time and your own.

[Azraella]

Just saw this crap. This NGNM85 is from Boston, I am clearly from the UK. He is an Anarchist, a quick scan of my recent post makes it obvious that I am a Democratic Socialist.

We aren't the only people who think this site is full of loons and halfwits by the way.


Quite humorous. You come on to a revolutionary leftist site expecting us to accept that reformist politics are all fine and dandy and when we disagree with you, you want to insult and degrade those you don't agree with. I don't post on Democratic Underground because I am an advocate for revolutionary change and I disagree with the reformist politics. What's your reason for posting here? Surely, us "loons and halfwits" are a waste of your time?

[Agathor]

Stop whining.

[Azraella]

I'm hardly whining, I'm just amused as fuck :lol:

[Lucretia]

After 200+ posts and he still hasn't been restricted to OI yet? Are the mods asleep at the wheel or what?

[ed miliband]

Just saw this crap. This NGNM85 is from Boston, I am clearly from the UK. He is an Anarchist, a quick scan of my recent post makes it obvious that I am a Democratic Socialist.

We aren't the only people who think this site is full of loons and halfwits by the way.

ngnm85 is an "anarchist" only inasmuch as he really, really likes noam chomsky, and since chomsky has identified with anarchism it follows that s/he should too. chomsky himself is a member of the democratic socialists of america, who have a similar approach to the democrats as the cpusa, ngnm85, and - presumably - you. the poster who pointed out the similarities between your position and ngnm85's was just saying you both see the democrats as the "lesser evil" and so advocate voting for them in elections. whether you both identify with different traditions isn't really of any importance, is it?

serious question though now, what exactly is the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy? because democratic socialism is a term used by the labour party, the aforementioned d.s.a., bernie sanders - all to the right of old school social democracy. would wage labour and a market system still exist in a democratic socialist society, for example? [not trolling you now, just interested 'cos i've never got a clear answer on this].

[DaringMehring]

During the 1930s the British Communist Party was better funded than the Labour and Liberal Parties because they were getting money from Stalin. If money is directly convertible into votes we should have seen hundreds of Communist MPs between the wars.


Source? At the height of its Moscow funding, in the 1980s the CPUSA at least received about $3 million a year. I find it hard to believe that Moscow funding in the UK during the interwar period amounted to more material support than that of all the Lords supporting the Tories, etc.




Money is important in politics but not for the reasons you think.


Glad to have a true master such as yourself to educate me.



Through advertising, parties buy degrees of popularity for themselves and unpopularity for their opponents. This has nothing to do with the parliamentary system: it's just advertising. A cash-strapped revolutionary organization would have to overcome this in the same way that a parliamentary one would. America is slightly different because some of its states have set up obstructive barriers to third parties, but if you get a few people interested these laws wouldn't be difficult to get rid of. Far more important concessions have been won.


Shocker -- one of the ways money is invaluable in elections is... buying advertising.



The bourgeois media is far more important than campaign finance, but again, it has nothing to do with the electoral system. It would smear revolutionary groups as it smears parliamentary ones.


The bourgeois media and campaign finance are tied together when it comes to elections. I have an intimate knowledge of bourgeois elections and also non-bourgeois (union) elections, having worked on both for a while now, including before becoming a Marxist. In any election, money can essentially buy votes. Money buys advertising, phonebank staff, door-to-doorers, mailers, strategists, endorsements, etc. and having it, in itself gives credibility.



If universal suffrage was unimportant the bourgeoisie would not have fought against it for a hundred years and only begun granting concessions when they were terrified that one day we were going to murder them. Like Alexander II said about serfdom: 'abolish it from above before it abolishes itself from below'.


This is a reductionist and misleading history. First, you forget to mention the bourgeoisie fought for "democracy" at a certain point in history. Second, your logic is stupid because just because the bourgeoisie oppose something, doesn't mean a socialist should support it --- the bourgeoisie opposed feudalism, the English bourgeoisie opposed the French bourgeoisie.



There are good arguments against my position (although apparently not on Revleft). I don't agree with them but I can't refute them either. However, a very basic moral principle is that you don't resort to violence until all peaceful methods have been extinguished. Hasn't happened.

How morally superior of you.

What you fail to mention is -- it is the bourgeoisie that starts the violence, every time. A picket line is a non-violent matter... until the bourgeoisie sends in the cops. A mass strike is a non-violent matter... until the bourgeoisie sends in the national guard. Even October 1917 was not violent... until the Whites organized their armies and attacked in 1918.

You compound the silliness of your moralizing by failing to recognize that, in the bizarre scenario where the bourgeoisie felt threatened by the results of an election, they would use violence to get their way. See: Spain 1936.

Violence is not in the hands of our class. The bourgeoisie are the ones who are used to using it, and who will use it. What we need is readiness for self-defense.

Not electoral illusions.

[DaringMehring]

After 200+ posts and he still hasn't been restricted to OI yet? Are the mods asleep at the wheel or what?

It's funny how similar to NGNM he is. It's some kind of a troll archetype -- "the self-superior righteous reformist." All hail bourgeois democracy!

[jookyle]

I think DeLeon summed up reformism best:


Take, for instance, a poodle. You can reform him in a lot of ways. You can shave his whole body and leave a tassel at the tip of his tail; you may bore a hole through each ear, and tie a blue bow on one and a red bow on the other; you may put a brass collar around his neck with your initials on, and a trim little blanket on his back; yet, throughout, a poodle he was and a poodle he remains. Each of these changes probably wrought a corresponding change in the poodle’s life. When shorn of all his hair except a tassel at the tail’s tip he was owned by a wag who probably cared only for the fun he could get out of his pet; when he appears gaily decked in bows, probably his young mistress’ attachment is of tenderer sort; when later we see him in the fancier’s outfit, the treatment he receives and the uses he is put to may be yet again and probably are, different. Each of these transformations or stages may mark a veritable epoch in the poodle’s existence. And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain.

That is reform.

http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm

[Agathor]

All hail bourgeois democracy!

The more prominent revleft archetype: the sarcastic idiot.

[Prometeo liberado]

The thread that wouldn't end. Have we sufficiently answered the OP's question yet? Fuckin CP! Where do these people come from?

[eric922]

During the 1930s the British Communist Party was better funded than the Labour and Liberal Parties because they were getting money from Stalin. If money is directly convertible into votes we should have seen hundreds of Communist MPs between the wars.

Money is important in politics but not for the reasons you think. Through advertising, parties buy degrees of popularity for themselves and unpopularity for their opponents. This has nothing to do with the parliamentary system: it's just advertising. A cash-strapped revolutionary organization would have to overcome this in the same way that a parliamentary one would. America is slightly different because some of its states have set up obstructive barriers to third parties, but if you get a few people interested these laws wouldn't be difficult to get rid of. Far more important concessions have been won.

The bourgeois media is far more important than campaign finance, but again, it has nothing to do with the electoral system. It would smear revolutionary groups as it smears parliamentary ones.

If universal suffrage was unimportant the bourgeoisie would not have fought against it for a hundred years and only begun granting concessions when they were terrified that one day we were going to murder them. Like Alexander II said about serfdom: 'abolish it from above before it abolishes itself from below'.

There are good arguments against my position (although apparently not on Revleft). I don't agree with them but I can't refute them either. However, a very basic moral principle is that you don't resort to violence until all peaceful methods have been extinguished. Hasn't happened.
Nice post, of course you just violated on of Revleft's maxims. "Never use moral principles in arguments" Get ready to be attacked as a "moralist." I actually agree with your parts of your post, but I'm I think in the minority here. However, I still think the CPUSA sucks and should change its name. They aren't communists. As for peaceful solutions, to me it seems like they have been exhausted at this point, however I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[Lucretia]

The thread that wouldn't end. Have we sufficiantly answered the OP's question yet? Fuckin CP! Where do these people come from?

As annoying as these types of threads are, they do serve a useful purpose: they bring all the reformists out of the woodwork so they can easily be identified and restricted accordingly.

[Mather]

It seems like alot of People put down and disrespect the CPSUSA thinking there not Socialists and Communists because of their short term goals..


The CPUSA only ever talk about their short term goals and never about what comes next. I suspect that this is deliberate as they are not a revolutionary party, so all they have to offer is short term goals and social democratic reforms.



The thing is the USA is soooo Capitalistic and Right Wing that you gotta be real instead of "revolutionary"


Well if the specific material conditions of the USA makes it's society more capitalistic and right-wing than others, how is watering down communist politics and moving the CPUSA to the right going to counter this right-wing ideological hegemony?

The Democrats in the USA and the social democratic parties in the UK and Europe did this in the 1980s and 1990s and the only effect it has had is that the entire political narrative has moved to the right. This policy, known as triangulation (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)) has had the effect of driving many working class people away from social democratic parties and a lot of them dropping out of electoral politics altogether.



Joseph Stalin told the CPUSA to infiltrate the Democratic Party and Vote Democratic to change it from the inside..


And how is that change coming along? Given that the CPUSA has been infiltrating the Democrats and supporting them since the 1930s, how do explain the fact that not only have the Democrats not changed but have in fact become even more right-wing and willingly attack the working class with as much zeal as their Republican counter-parts? Prehaps this theory is just flat out wrong.

Besides the fact that much of the advice Stalin gave to CPs from the 1930s onwards was done to advance Soviet foreign policy objectives and had nothing to do with the local struggles of the working class. It's 2012 and the material conditions of today have changed since the 1930s.



instead of being armchair revolutionarys they are actually real and in reality..


The CPUSA are so in touch with reality that they insist on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.



this isnt the 18th century where revolution was possible..


Care to provide any details about why the material conditions of today make revolution impossible?



the Government has all the best weapons and this is a very different world then what it used to be..


The government had the best weapons in the Americas in 1776, France in 1789, Russia in 1917 and so on. Apart from technological changes, the state having a monopoly on the use of weaponry and violence has not changed since capitalism first developed.

Also, in all successful revolutions sections of the military will defect the ruling class and join the side of the revolutionaries. Given that many soldiers are from the working class themselves, during a pre-revolutionary situation class lines appear even amongst the armed forces.



therefore revolution is impossible other than changing it at the voting booth..


Then please explain this to me; How come no election has ever dismantled the capitalist system in any country at any point in history?

Do you really think the ruling class will allow their entire system to be dismantled without them putting up a fight and resisting the working class? Salvador Allende tried to do what your advocating, look where it got him.



they are very much still Socialists and Communists its just they realize things have changed and thats why they have short term goals that way when the short term goals have been achieved then they can change things..


That same pathetic excuse is used by the Chinese 'Communist' Party to justify their policy ruling over the worlds second largest capitalist economy.



it seems like people here want a party that just hangs out in a resturant and spouts Revolution and then does nothing..


Nice way to dismiss anyone who does not dogmatically cling to your reformist worldview.:rolleyes:



there not like that..


No, they are a lot worse. The CPUSA are sellouts and their class treason places them firmly on the side of the ruling class.



unlike a few armchair revolutionarys they actually live in the real world..


You keep on repeating this meaningless one liner, are you out of actual points to make that can back up your position?



So the CPUSA is still very much Red and it has the most Members of any Communist Party in the USA


So what!

If your going to make an appeal based on popularity, then the Democrats and Republicans can make greater claims against the CPUSA.

Remember that the Chinese 'Communist' Party is the largest political party in the world, it still does not alter the fact that they are now the ruling class and an enemy of the working class.



and they use their logic and reason..


If selling out the working class and adopting a defeatist attitude is reason and logic, the the CPUSA can keep their 'reason' and 'logic'.



instead of spouting stupid things that wont work


Again, give me an example of where elections and reformism have led to the abolition of capitalism. That you dogmatically insist on elections and reformism even when the evidence suggests that your position is wrong tells me it is you that is "spouting stupid things that wont work".

[Mather]

as far as persecuting trotskyites I dont really care about that.. actually I think they should have done that to the trotskyites because there not really Marxist Leninist and reformism is more realistic then "revolution"..


Nice one mate! So you have no problem with the suppression and persecution of leftists during the McCarthy withchunts, many of them having their entire lives ruined.

Unlike some other posters, I don't think your naive and ill informed points against revolution warrant being restricted. However, the above quote does warrant a restriction as there is no excuse (even ignorance) to support state oppression against leftists.

Unless you retract that post, I hope you get restricted.

[Guayaco]

Not every parliament in every country is as ridiculously dominated by filthy rich people and the capital as the United States, you know. It's not really at all rare for people to get elected in Europe with pretty small campaign funding with a good mix of luck and knowing what you do.

The thing is that Europe has Parliamentary Democracy with proportional representation (some are hybrid systems, such as France). So, if some minor party gets 5% o 10% of the vote, they will get a proportional number of seats in Parliament. The U.S., on the other hand, has a "winner take all" system in which a two-party duopoly is baked in the cake.

However, in Europe and in the US, a massive amount of money is necessary to play a significant role in the electoral circus. A wealthy individual, such as a Berlusconi or a Ross Perot, who has no political experience and no organization, can automatically have a credible shot at any public office, whereas parties with little in their coffers are condemned to perpetual marginalization.

[Geiseric]

The USA has an all around backwards system. The cultural hegemony of the US bourgeoisie is really out of hand, and honestly it's only really recent i've seen people in public talking about revolutionary politics, and I live in one of the most widely "progressive" liberal college douchebag cities in the world. As for CP USA they were completely useless all throughout WW2 because of their ties with stalinism. Once the USSR was in peace with Nazi Germany, they were anti war and supportive of industrial unionism. Once the USSR entered the war, they supported a no strike pledge, and the roosevelt presidency. go figure.