Cpusa

[Red Warrior]

So I'm wondering if I should register for the Communist Party of America. I would like to because I feel like it would be a great way to get involved in politics, but from what I've heard they're beginning to stray from Marxism and are quite reformist, even associating with the Democratic Party. Does anybody have any suggestions?

[hashem]

CPUSA is a counter revolutionary party. it you join them you will become involved in bourgeois politics not proletarian politics. study more before you join any organization.

[Per Levy]

the cpusa is a bourgeois party, the left wing of the democratic party and the only reason why they havnt dropped the name "communist party" is because its their brand and they would lose members and potentional new members, like yourself, and therefore they would lose money.

or in other words, they arnt communist and before joining any party read up on what the partys positions are and if you feel comfortable with those.

[SonofRage]

Is that the only group in your location? Where do you see yourself politically?

I share the criticisms of the CPUSA already expressed in this thread, but I think that, if they are the only game in town and you're an inexperienced activist, there could be value in getting involved just for the experience. All their work isn't necessarily going to revolve around elections and getting Democrats elected.

Just be clear about what you're getting yourself into. :grin:

[Decolonize The Left]

So I'm wondering if I should register for the Communist Party of America. I would like to because I feel like it would be a great way to get involved in politics, but from what I've heard they're beginning to stray from Marxism and are quite reformist, even associating with the Democratic Party. Does anybody have any suggestions?

Your location says Iowa and, having been to Iowa, the CPUSA may be the only larger organization in town. Do they have a local office where you're at? If not, I wouldn't register with them as you'd be just as well off registering with a more actively leftist (as opposed to reformist) organization from afar. If so, what other leftist organizations have local offices nearby? I.e. what are your alternatives?

Also, why not consider getting together with some friends and discussing what sort of local actions you can have within your community? An organization need not be formally political to be really political (a community farm, for example, can be far more political than a so-called political organization). Do you have any like-minded folks around you?

[Five Year Plan]

So I'm wondering if I should register for the Communist Party of America. I would like to because I feel like it would be a great way to get involved in politics, but from what I've heard they're beginning to stray from Marxism and are quite reformist, even associating with the Democratic Party. Does anybody have any suggestions?

Why not just cut to the chase, and join the Democratic Party directly instead? What, in terms of political practice, would you be doing differently in the CPUSA?

[M-L-C-F]

Yeah, the CPUSA is indeed shit. The only reason that it's worth joining is if it's the only thing in your area, or to make new connections. It hasn't been relevant in years, and the only thing that it has going for it, is some historical stuff. Gus Hall was the last "legitimate" head of the party, and I say that with a grain of salt. Because of his lack of respect for the Black Panthers, and because he was just another revisionist, still continuing the same mistakes. While Sam Webb is a tool, and all he's done is led the party to ultra-revisionism, and further to liberalism.

Not to mention that there are still many government informants in the party as well. There were so many, that even the Soviets in the early '80s, started to tell the kids in the youth wing, to form a new party or affiliation. If the Soviets in the '80s said that the party was bad, then it's bad. It's only gotten worse, since the counterrevolutions in Eastern Europe.

That being said, you're better off joining the CPUSA over the SPUSA or the DSoA. Because the SPUSA and DSoA are blatant liberals, with only a few legitimate socialists in them. Ed Asner being one of them in the DSoA. You might luck out and find one of the handful of legitimate communists in the CPUSA, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd also advocate against joining the RCP too. Cause Bob Avakian's little cult is gonna die when he does. Bob Avakian is as big of a tool as Sam Webb. Prachanda should've just told him off, when he was talking shit about them.

Some people here might advocate joining the PSL. I've got mixed feelings on them. (The WWP and the Marcyists are meh, and that's who they split from.) They were the fad on this site, for American leftists, several years ago. You might like them, and they're better than the CPUSA. I myself might be calling up the SWP about membership. As I'd like to be able to continue to make new connections, and meet more leftists again. But I'm also considering the PSL, despite my mixed feelings on them. I really hope all of this helps you though.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation: http://www.pslweb.org/.
The Militant (the paper of the Socialist Workers Party): http://www.themilitant.com/.

[Q]

Here you go: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States

[adipocere]

It doesn't really matter what party you join because due to bickering and sectarianism, it's all irrelevant in the US. Cause see this group is liberal, that group is reformist and those people are a cult. I bet Joe McCarthy's ghost comes to revleft to jerk off.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Here you go: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States

Hahahaha, wow, someone listed Platypus as a left-communist organisation. I would be insulted if I was a Left Communist. For the record, Platypus are an organisation of "Trotskyist" shills for imperialist intervention.

[SonofRage]

That being said, you're better off joining the CPUSA over the SPUSA or the DSoA. Because the SPUSA and DSoA are blatant liberals, with only a few legitimate socialists in them.

I think that's a bit of a simplification. The SPUSA has historically been a mixed-bag but has always had some genuine revolutionaries in it. The sectarian bickering and infighting usually means the revolutionaries get pushed out or leave. The political orientation is going to vary by local.

The Democratic Socialists of America I'd argue are to the left of the CPUSA. At least they don't always support the Democratic Party, having endorsed Greens in the past. Their new national director is young and came from their youth wing. She seems to the left of their old leader, Frank Llewellyn. A lot of the contributors to Jacobin Magazine are from DSA.

There's also been a lot of talk in DSA, from what I've seen as an outsider looking in, about changing the strategy inherited from Harrington of being "the left wing of the possible" i.e. supporting "progressive" Democrats. For example, this article on DSA's website which admits this strategy has been a failure:

Move Forward of Pack it Up (http://www.dsausa.org/move_forward_or_pack_it_up)

[M-L-C-F]

I think that's a bit of a simplification. The SPUSA has historically been a mixed-bag but has always had some genuine revolutionaries in it. The sectarian bickering and infighting usually means the revolutionaries get pushed out or leave. The political orientation is going to vary by local.

The Democratic Socialists of America I'd argue are to the left of the CPUSA. At least they don't always support the Democratic Party, having endorsed Greens in the past. Their new national director is young and came from their youth wing. She seems to the left of their old leader, Frank Llewellyn. A lot of the contributors to Jacobin Magazine are from DSA.

There's also been a lot of talk in DSA, from what I've seen as an outsider looking in, about changing the strategy inherited from Harrington of being "the left wing of the possible" i.e. supporting "progressive" Democrats. For example, this article on DSA's website which admits this strategy has been a failure:

Move Forward of Pack it Up (http://www.dsausa.org/move_forward_or_pack_it_up)

It might've been a simplification, but I didn't deny that there are legitimate socialists in their ranks. I even named one, who has criticized the liberalism in the DSoA in the past. But to be honest, I haven't paid any attention to either party in years. So if there's actual change happening, to push the DSoA to the left. Then I think that's a good thing. It doesn't change how I feel about them though. I also hate the Shachtmanites, and they ended up in the SPUSA. Which is just one of the many issues and complaints that I've got with them.

[SonofRage]

Didn't the Shachtmanites, when the Socialist Party of America split, go on to form the Social Democrats USA?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Didn't the Shachtmanites, when the Socialist Party of America split, go on to form the Social Democrats USA?

The SPA became SDUSA in the seventies. The Shachtmanites went on to form the DSA, and some of them ended up in the SPUSA. As far as I can tell the SPUSA still has a Shachtmanite analysis of the Soviet Union.

[M-L-C-F]

The SPA became SDUSA in the seventies. The Shachtmanites went on to form the DSA, and some of them ended up in the SPUSA. As far as I can tell the SPUSA still has a Shachtmanite analysis of the Soviet Union.

Ah, the split of the SPA, what a joke. Though I thought more Shachtmanites went to the SPUSA than the DSoA. Which is why I singled them out as a problem with the SPUSA, compared to the DSoA. But you're the Trot, so you'd know better than I do. Which means that they're both seriously infected with the Shachtmanite disorder. :p

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah, the split of the SPA, what a joke. Though I thought more Shachtmanites went to the SPUSA than the DSoA. Which is why I singled them out as a problem with the SPUSA, compared to the DSoA. But you're the Trot, so you'd know better than I do. Which means that they're both seriously infected with the Shachtmanite disorder. :p

Most Trotskyists would not consider the "right" Shachtmanites (Shachtman, Harrington and others) to be Trotskyists, not just because their politics were shit (the politics of the "left" Shachtmanites around Draper were also shit, and were in fact far less consistent, even if Draper himself had some admirable qualities), but because they never really claimed to be Trotskyists or Leninists - and they certainly never advocated a socialist revolution.

In fact I don't think there was a sharp differentiation between Shachtmanites and the rest of the SPA. The SPA accepted the "theory" of bureaucratic collectivism (which was helped by the fact that the SPA under Debs used the same term - to refer to something else, but there you have it), the Shachtmanites accepted the SPA electoralism and reformism, and it was by all accounts a happy marriage. I don't recall any struggles over theory in the SPA, moreover. Which is why I called "bureaucratic collectivism" a "theory" in inverted commas - it was less an honest attempt to analyse the Soviet Union and more a ritual chant to ward off the black magic of Stalinism.

I would say that both the DSA and the SPUSA are non-factors in radical politics (bear in mind, though, that I'm not from the USA). They look big on paper, but as far as I can tell most of their membership is inactive. The DSA looks like, and I'm going to be blunt, some sort of quasi-socialist graveyard where people's revolutionary (or "revolutionary") careers go to die, and the SPUSA seems slightly unstable. Didn't one of their presidential candidates end up supporting the Democrats and then some neo-Nazis?

[Црвена]

From what I can tell, the CPUSA are social democrats, not actual socialists...but the whole political spectrum of the USA has shifted so far to the right that they look to the casual non-communist observer like communists. Of course, I think protest movements and unions are much better for revolutionaries to join than parties that are part of the bourgeois pseudo-democratic system.

[Comrade Jacob]

Bullshit party for bullshit people. I feel bad for the genuine commies in there.

[Five Year Plan]

From what I can tell, the CPUSA are social democrats, not actual socialists...but the whole political spectrum of the USA has shifted so far to the right that they look to the casual non-communist observer like communists. Of course, I think protest movements and unions are much better for revolutionaries to join than parties that are part of the bourgeois pseudo-democratic system.

I think calling them social democrats is pushing it. These are just liberals who market their Stalinist history as credentials that they can make liberalism work more effectively than the Democrats can.

[M-L-C-F]

Most Trotskyists would not consider the "right" Shachtmanites (Shachtman, Harrington and others) to be Trotskyists, not just because their politics were shit (the politics of the "left" Shachtmanites around Draper were also shit, and were in fact far less consistent, even if Draper himself had some admirable qualities), but because they never really claimed to be Trotskyists or Leninists - and they certainly never advocated a socialist revolution.

In fact I don't think there was a sharp differentiation between Shachtmanites and the rest of the SPA. The SPA accepted the "theory" of bureaucratic collectivism (which was helped by the fact that the SPA under Debs used the same term - to refer to something else, but there you have it), the Shachtmanites accepted the SPA electoralism and reformism, and it was by all accounts a happy marriage. I don't recall any struggles over theory in the SPA, moreover. Which is why I called "bureaucratic collectivism" a "theory" in inverted commas - it was less an honest attempt to analyse the Soviet Union and more a ritual chant to ward off the black magic of Stalinism.

I would say that both the DSA and the SPUSA are non-factors in radical politics (bear in mind, though, that I'm not from the USA). They look big on paper, but as far as I can tell most of their membership is inactive. The DSA looks like, and I'm going to be blunt, some sort of quasi-socialist graveyard where people's revolutionary (or "revolutionary") careers go to die, and the SPUSA seems slightly unstable. Didn't one of their presidential candidates end up supporting the Democrats and then some neo-Nazis?

Yeah, I figured most Trots didn't like them. Max Shachtman was a piece of shit.

They've backed the Democrats, but I'm not sure about that Neo-Nazi thing. They're non-factors, and they've always been non-factors. Like the CPUSA and the RCP, they're both a joke. But you've pretty much hit the head on the nail about both of them. Liberals holding a red rose, is a good analogy for either party.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The CPUSA is pretty hardcore Communists and idk what they're talking about. Like one time I saw one of thems and like he had a goatee and a beret. He was like handing out flyers and yelling at folk. It was like I was in the midst of some modern Ché. I will never forget this day. Join the RCP, it's pretty fun too.

[Hagalaz]

Dinosaurs.

[sirz345]

Is there and ACTUAL Communist Party? Not the CPUSA and its bourgeoisie "Marxism". I thought about the Revolutionary Communist Party of the US but it seems they worship Bob Avakian (Their leader) almost as if he is a god, I may be wrong and this guy could totally be a revolutionary genius who deserves the praise, but seriously is their an actual Marxist party in the US? What are they called?

[Orange Juche]

The Socialist Party USA is more Leninist than the CPUSA, and they're Democratic Socialists.