Why is the CPUSA the way it is?

[Tolstoy]

From all the research ive done, the CPUSA in spite of proclaiming Marxism-Leninsim, seems far more interested in endorsing Democrats than embracing genuine change for society. What really drives me nuts is that it is a member of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, meaning it represents American Marxists to the Communist Parties of Cuba and China.

Im aware they werent always this way, so my question is, how did they end up like this?

[Remus Bleys]

Because stqalin instructed them to support the war effort so they went all buddy buddy with liberal. They also supported mass persecutions of trotskyists because the trotsky stalin feud I guess.
Its really a great example of the failures of both stalinism and popular front.

I should also add that they further liberalified themselves whenn krushcev and even more with brehznev came into power.

[Tolstoy]

I guess that makes sense. I do know that when they started villifying the Trotskyists was when James Cannon (personal hero of mine) founded the SWP

[G4b3n]

Too bad the genuine Marxists of Cuba and China are also unrepresented by a coherent political party. Interestingly though, there has been a rise in traditional Maoism among students in China, it is definitely something worth keeping up with.

The CPUSA is the way it is because of the half century long and bitterly waged anti-communist crusade that destroyed the political existence of the worker's movement. It makes liberalism look very appealing when all your rhetoric has been successfully demonized by all outlets of bourgeois propaganda.

[servusmoderni]

They're just fancy liberals and feminists, nothing revolutionary for sure. They diverted from the class struggle a long time ago. They've certainly been infiltrated by the Bourgeoisie.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I like to make fun of cpusa as much as the next person, but on the whole they aren't that different from 99% of leftwing groups here in the us. Ultimately, the content coming from fringe groups consisting of dozens and sometimes hundreds of individuals isn't really important to anyone other than people who have the time and interest to complain about it on the internet or at activist events. Cpusa is silly but it's equally silly to single them out so much given the identical state their competition/comrades are in.

[Red Shaker]

From its very beginning, there was a struggle in the CP between revolution and reform, as there is in any revolutionary party. In the early days the CP tried to build communist led organizations that were militant and fought the capitalists. They did not win workers to communist revolution even when they joined the party. In the 30's, they developed a new strategy of working in mass organizations. Although they grew as an organization, few were won to communist revolution. At the beginning of WWII, they de-emphasized the fight against racism because they felt it was interfering with the fight against fascism. Around 1945, they dissolved the CP, as they completely abandoned revolution. When the anti-communist campaigns of the late 40's intensified, they portrayed themselves as a party for a peaceful transition to socialism. They continued to be a militant organization on some campuses and unions, but not revolutionary. By the 60's they were the left wing of the Democratic Party.
External factors played a role in their demise, but it was the failure of winning their members to communism that did them in.

[Ocean Seal]

I waiting to see how long it would take for a "Stalin made them do it" post to come up. I was not the least bit disappointed.

[Moofy Chewbacca]

The CPUSA has a rather... divided leadership regarding questions of "revisionism."

But factionalism is death, so for the time being, the party is pursuing a popular front strategy. This means occasional "endorsements" of Democrats, although if you ever met a large group of CP members, you'd be hard pressed to find one who didn't hate Obama. Naturally, there are reformist elements in the party, but there are also strongly orthodox M-L tendencies amongst many of our members and leaders.

The reason these internal divisions are not obvious is because of the actual party discipline followed by most members. You know, that little thing that actually allows us to exist for more than decade without fracturing into ten different politically impotent groups.

[Comrade Chernov]

They're just fancy liberals and feminists, nothing revolutionary for sure. They diverted from the class struggle a long time ago. They've certainly been infiltrated by the Bourgeoisie.

So Feminism is bourgeois and 'diverted from the class struggle'?

Are you one of those '4chan socialists' that tells women to get back in the kitchen while masturbating to soviet military parades?

[Tolstoy]

So Feminism is bourgeois and 'diverted from the class struggle'?

Are you one of those '4chan socialists' that tells women to get back in the kitchen while masturbating to soviet military parades?

I really dont think he meant anything mean by it, there is a huge gap between liberal feminism, which while commendable can never eliminate patriarchy by reforming capitalism, and Socialist Feminism which sees capitalism at the root of all forms of opression

[Remus Bleys]

I waiting to see how long it would take for a "Stalin made them do it" post to come up. I was not the least bit disappointed.
Lol yeah. theres probably a lot more to do with its corruption though/

4chan socialists
who the hell on 4chan claims to be socialist?

[Per Levy]

who the hell on 4chan claims to be socialist?

people who played red alert games?

as for the op, the cpusa had the same problems as any official communist party in the world, it was in the end controlled by moscow and had to defend every action the soviet union made. and as one can imagine was a bit difficult. there is of course more but why waste you time with the cpusa?

[servusmoderni]

So Feminism is bourgeois and 'diverted from the class struggle'?

Are you one of those '4chan socialists' that tells women to get back in the kitchen while masturbating to soviet military parades?

Yes, Feminism is a bourgeois trait. The class struggle is between the poor and the rich. Feminism think women are a political class in itself, which it isn't. There's poor women and there's rich women, it makes totally no sense to consider women as being a different class of people. We're all humans. Branding names on people isn't going to help the true and only struggle there is.

The most problematic inequality is not between men and women, but between rich and poor, and that feminists, who generally come from the upper classes of society, attempt to distract attention from this struggle.

No, I'm not a "4chan" socialist. Honestly, I didn't even knew what "4chan" was before you talked about it.

And yes, I like soviet military parades, I think they're pretty amazing though I don't fuck myself over it.

[Per Levy]

No, I'm not a "4chan" socialist. Honestly, I didn't even knew what "4chan" was before you talked about it.

you lucky person.


And yes, I like soviet military parades, I think they're pretty amazing though I don't fuck myself over it.

i find those rather meh.

also i do think you have quite a faulty view what feminism is tbh. also you wont find any upper class bourgeois feminists here but poor proletarian feminists. yeah there is a difference indeed.

[servusmoderni]

you lucky person.

Indeed, now, I think I have brain damage.

[Remus Bleys]

The most problematic inequality is not between men and women, but between rich and poor, and that feminists, who generally come from the upper classes of society, attempt to distract attention from this struggle.

"The whole demagogy about the rich and the poor confuses the issue. Communism does not mean taking money from the rich, nor revolutionaries distributing it to the poor."
~Gilles Dauve

[Comrade Chernov]

Feminism is a part of the revolution whether you'd like it to be or not, Servus. The class struggle indeed does not take women to be their own political class, but women are still inequal to men, and bringing them up to par (or taking men down to their level, whichever is easier) must be included in order for a revolution to be deemed successful. The same is true in regards to the relationship between individuals of color and whites.

[Prometeo liberado]

Because stqalin instructed them to
And Stalin kept this up by possessing the soul of Gus Hall and instructed him to keep up support for the Dems until his death in the late 80's. Stalin also instructed the human body to create rickets, the heartbreak of psoriasis and whooping cough. How illogical do you people intend to get tonight? Let the derailment begin. Exhausting.

p.s. Yes, by all means it is questionable for a communist leader to want communist to fight the Nazis. What was I thinking:confused:.

[Remus Bleys]

And Stalin kept this up by possessing the soul of Gus Hall and instructed him to keep up support for the Dems until his death in the late 80's. Stalin also instructed the human body to create rickets, the heartbreak of psoriasis and whooping cough. How illogical do you people intend to get tonight? Let the derailment begin. Exhausting.
I pretty clearly stated that Stalin was the start of it later on. Of course there was structural failures in it from its inception, but the demand to let an influx of liberals in, as well as Brezhnev and Kruschev (which you illogical twits neglect to forget I attack as well, just so you can make some bullshit up about how anti-stalinists are dumbasses).
To reduce my entire argument to that is fucking dishonest, illogical, undialectical, and shows the insanity you tankies have.


p.s. Yes, by all means it is questionable for a communist leader to want communist to fight the Nazis. What was I thinking:confused:.
I was unaware that the US government was Communist.

[servusmoderni]

"The whole demagogy about the rich and the poor confuses the issue. Communism does not mean taking money from the rich, nor revolutionaries distributing it to the poor."
~Gilles Dauve

And where the fucking point with my subject? I never asked people to raid banks, I said feminism must not be the ultimate goal of the revolution. It'll come with the proletarian revolution, not with lobbying from the bourgeois feminist class.

[Remus Bleys]

And where the fucking point with my subject? I never asked people to raid banks, I said feminism must not be the ultimate goal of the revolution. It'll come with the proletarian revolution, not with lobbying from the bourgeois feminist class.
See the part i quoted where you were all "oh gawd the rich"

[servusmoderni]

See the part i quoted where you were all "oh gawd the rich"

No, I went "oh gawd the inequality." Please don't misinterpret my statements.

[Remus Bleys]

No, I went "oh gawd the inequality." Please don't misinterpret my statements.
quoting you:
The most problematic inequality is... between rich and poor


do you see how that still critiques you?

[RedBen]

oh lovely. another bunch of people under 25 crying about how unrevolutionary cp is, as if your organisation is better. what other left party in the states was bigger or more influential? tell me more about how revolutionary your group is? how's all that sabotage and assassination working out for you? fighting the good fight from the rugged jungles of the suburbs? you must all be real radicals, i bet uncle sam is right outside your door about to knock it in and take you in cause you're all so revolutionary. how can communism be implemented WITHOUT a popular front? you really think i few socialists can implement it? really? isn't that forcing it on people? isn't that counter-intuitive and would breed even more counter revolutionaries? i swear some of you lot have no fucking sense. talk to your everyday average person and see how radicalized they are. we are numerically inferior to the reactionaries, we need to change that and doing things that would turn most people away from us would only hurt and further alienate us. if we can't win the people then what the fuck are we fighting for? why do we even want communism if not to make things better for everyone? what's the goddamn point? i swear some of you guys are bored yuppies who want to piss of your conservative mommy and daddy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, Feminism is a bourgeois trait.
Bourgeois feminism and revolutionary feminism within the class struggle are two different things.


The most problematic inequality is not between men and women, but between rich and poor, and that feminists, who generally come from the upper classes of society, attempt to distract attention from this struggle.
As Engels pointed out, "the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." To think that we can have a complete social revolution without addressing the oppression of women is to misunderstand what smashing the bourgeois system entails.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

oh lovely. another bunch of people under 25 crying about how unrevolutionary cp is, as if your organisation is better.
I'm 43, and what's revolutionary about pimping electorally for the Democrats?

[DaringMehring]

The CPUSA slowly fell over a long period. The greatest mass revolutionary party in US history could not go down in an instant due to only one decisive event. General backward movement of the working class, repression, Stalinism (later morphing into the politics of the gerontocratic military state), etc. all contributed to the fall. But even while declining the party did a lot of good things -- Abraham Lincoln brigade, countless strikes and organizing drives, Salt of the Earth in the 50s, struggles around civil rights. You've got to respect that.

[Remus Bleys]

The CPUSA has a rather... divided leadership regarding questions of "revisionism."

But factionalism is death, so for the time being, the party is pursuing a popular front strategy. This means occasional "endorsements" of Democrats, although if you ever met a large group of CP members, you'd be hard pressed to find one who didn't hate Obama. Naturally, there are reformist elements in the party, but there are also strongly orthodox M-L tendencies amongst many of our members and leaders.

The reason these internal divisions are not obvious is because of the actual party discipline followed by most members. You know, that little thing that actually allows us to exist for more than decade without fracturing into ten different politically impotent groups.

Ill be perfectly honest this makes no sense. Isn't the popular front a tactic for getting reforms?
Why would you stick in a reformist party?
Do you honestly think the cpusa is relevant period?

[AmilcarCabral]

The CPUSA is like that because they are humans, what I mean is that humans evolved into honest altruist creatures. Look at The Socialist Party of France, that party is not socialist at all, it is a neoliberal party. And the same can be said about China, with its governing party called "The Communist Party of China", but China is not a nation in transition toward a workers-state.




From all the research ive done, the CPUSA in spite of proclaiming Marxism-Leninsim, seems far more interested in endorsing Democrats than embracing genuine change for society. What really drives me nuts is that it is a member of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, meaning it represents American Marxists to the Communist Parties of Cuba and China.

Im aware they werent always this way, so my question is, how did they end up like this?