The CPUSA and Obama

[Soomie]

So, there's something I just don't understand with this relationship. If Obama supports business and is doing absolutely nothing in support of the working class and the revolution, then why does the CPUSA support and endorse him?

And while we're on the subject, is there anyone on here who belongs to the CPUSA? My friend who originally explained communism to me doesn't like the party because they require money to be a member, and he says that goes against communism. I mean, I know they need funding to do things under capitalism, but he has a point here...

Anyway, just wanting to get some insight on the CPUSA in general and of their involvement with Barack Obama.

[Delenda Carthago]

Not So Communist Party of United States of America.

[Comrade Samuel]

They are communist only in name, they aren't so popular around here for many of the reasons you stated. They betray the working class at every opportunity and most members are for all intents and purposes democrats in denial.

[Delenda Carthago]

I mean, cmon. This party has this guy for a leader.

YNq78dZ3TnE

No, not the blond one.

[Soomie]

I was afraid that that was the case. I have not paid to be a member, because I don't feel that the CPUSA is what it should be, and I don't need to pay someone to tell me about socialism and communism. I know that no president is going to be able to bring a revolution due to how the government is. It will therefore have to come from the people.

Do you guys think that the CPUSA party is supporting Obama because Obama used to be a marxist in his youth? I used to think it was because he originally seemed to be on the far left and had the working in class in mind, but after seeing him support business and war the last 4 years, I'm not convinced.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I was afraid that that was the case. I have not paid to be a member, because I don't feel that the CPUSA is what it should be, and I don't need to pay someone to tell me about socialism and communism. I know that no president is going to be able to bring a revolution due to how the government is. It will therefore have to come from the people.

Do you guys think that the CPUSA party is supporting Obama because Obama used to be a marxist in his youth? I used to think it was because he originally seemed to be on the far left and had the working in class in mind, but after seeing him support business and war the last 4 years, I'm not convinced.
I don't think Obama was ever a Marxist. The CPUSA has a very long history of betraying the working class in this country. I would be happy to give you sources to go to, but it has been close to 90 years since it was a revolutionary organization.

As for the matter of dues, any serious organization would require dues from its members. The Spartacist League, a very serious Trotskyist organization, has a very high sustaining pledge rate (it is based on member's income). The sparts also require active membership -- going to meetings every week, selling the paper, going to campuses and factory gates, etc. Members of Leninist parties should see themselves as professional revolutionaries. A tremendous commitment is required. As for the CPUSA, you can probably pay ten bucks a year and check a box and become a member.

[Grenzer]

Members of Leninist parties should see themselves as professional revolutionaries.

And unfortunately, this is precisely what's wrong with Leninism: it's a parody of Lenin's actual ideas. The Bolshevik party was a mass party. If you seriously think that all of the members of the party basically dedicated a good portion of their income and their free time to the party, then you are mistaken. This cabal of activists is a mythology invented by the Soviet bureaucracy and anti-communist historians.

I can think of no other form of organization that is less conductive to workers. Many workers have low wages; they will not have the ability to pay a large chunk over to a political organization. Many workers work long hours; they will not have the inclination to spend what little free time they have with the party. The model you are describing is actually far more suited to the petit-bourgeoisie than it is actual workers. While activism is something that should be encouraged, it's unfortunately not realistic to expect to be able to have a truly proletarian party while making such huge demands conditional to membership.

What you are describing is a cult, not a political party.

[Robespierres Neck]

It's a shame. They have a rich revolutionary history. Like stated above, they're only communist by name now. Social democrats at best.

[hetz]

And unfortunately, this is precisely what's wrong with Leninism: it's a parody of Lenin's actual ideas.But that's true not only for Leninism. Insert xxx instead of Leninism and you'd still be right in most cases.

[Geiseric]

CP-USA is such a joke, they supported the last great imperialist war as soon as the USSR was invaded. When the USSR signed the Molotov Ribbentrop act, they were against the possibility of an Imperialist war against Japan and Germany. So they really have no reason to exist, they are as much a branch of the Democrats as the Democratic Socialists of America and the Green Party.

[hetz]

CP-USA is such a joke, they supported the last great imperialist war as soon as the USSR was invaded.
At that point it definitely stopped being an imperialist war.

[Geiseric]

They supported the US army against the German and Japanese one, which is a no no if you're actually marxist. They agreed for a no strike pledge on the grounds of some hardcore social patriotism all through world war two.

[Sea]

The CPUSA are a horrible bunch. It's rather sad, considering that there are bound to be people out there who don't know any better, and either will see this as an indictment of communism, or even worse, as reason to support Obama.

Granted with bourgeois propaganda being the fickle thing it is, liberals will shrug this off and conservatives will figure out a way to include it in their sermons.

[hetz]

They supported the US army against the German and Japanese one, which is a no no if you're actually marxist.So? How is that a "no no if you're actually Marxist?
Besides the US Army soldiers didn't even get to see their first Germans until 1943.

[Red Banana]

They supported the US army against the German and Japanese one, which is a no no if you're actually marxist. They agreed for a no strike pledge on the grounds of some hardcore social patriotism all through world war two.

I'm not sure if opting for bourgeois Democracies against Fascists is exactly a no no. I mean the inner quarrels of the international bourgeoisie shouldn't be relevant to Socialists yes, but I still think Fascism was (and is) something worth killing at the roots. And the US had a standing army to do it where as the CPUSA (or any actually left parties) did not.

[Ostrinski]

All war in the global industrial society by its nature is an expression of irreconcilable imperial forces. It is also in direct contradiction to the working classes of all national participants. As socialists we oppose any and all anti worker policies.

[hetz]

All war in the global industrial society by its nature is an expression of irreconcilable imperial forces.
True. But not all wars are imperialist wars like the First World War.
There are also wars of imperialist aggression.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Defending the USSR against Germany was the duty of of Marxists. Supporting US imperialism during WWII was a gross betrayal of Marxism and the proletariat. In supporting the US during the war the CPUSA did things like scab on strikes (hurts the war effort, you know) and cheer the US using nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians.


And unfortunately, this is precisely what's wrong with Leninism: it's a parody of Lenin's actual ideas. The Bolshevik party was a mass party. If you seriously think that all of the members of the party basically dedicated a good portion of their income and their free time to the party, then you are mistaken. This cabal of activists is a mythology invented by the Soviet bureaucracy and anti-communist historians.


And to comrade Ghost, as a small propaganda group, the SL looks a certain way. In a revolutionary upsurge, with a mass base, obviously it would be somewhat different. You think it is a "cult" for other reasons. Gasp, the members pay high dues. Well, if you make very little money in the SL, you don't pay so much. If you have a high paying job, you pay quite a bit -- as a professional revolutionary, why would you not want to do that? It is about commitment. These high pledges are paid by all members, including CC members.

I would add that the split with the Mensheviks in 1903 was precisely about the level of involvement of party members. Do I think that most members of the Bolsheviks devoted much of their time and resources to the party? I do. That's how they led the revolution. A bunch of the leaders also spent time in Jail or Siberia as part of their commitment to the party. This is probably not the place to expand this discussion, but it is a discussion worth having.

[Comrade Lenin]

i hate how he calls it nationalized socailsim... its national socialism...and socialism in nazi germany killed no one...nationalism killed them

[Sea]

i hate how he calls it nationalized socailsim... its national socialismI think you might be confusing nationalization with nationalism, comrade. Nationalization means, in the simplest of terms, putting sections of the economy into the public sector thereby taking (at least some) economic power out of the hands of the capitalists. The 'nation' in 'nationalization' simply and innocently refers to this public sector. Nationalism on the other hand is the blind admiration of one's nation, often leading people do to horrible things in the name of their nation by replacing theoretical and factual soundness with vague romanticism and so-called glory. The word nation here represents an entity of worship and occult. I think we both know very well which one of these is helpful, and which one hurtful.
socialism in nazi germanyWhat socialism in Nazi Germany? National Socialism is a contradiction in terms -- "socialism" was only used by the Nazis not to genuinely describe their beliefs but as an attempt at winning over the working class and fueling their "third way" propaganda. Nazism, and indeed all fascism, represents among other things an overarching state control of people's lives as well as a mythology to prop up such tyranny. After all, fascism is capitalism in decay.