Are there any legitimate Communist Parties in the United States?

[Peachman2000]

I know of the two major "Communist" parties in the United States (CPUSA, and RevCom), but are any of the legitimately trying to start a communist revolution? After looking at CPUSA, i see they don't even run candidates. They rely on the Democrats to create and enforce their policy's (which is unrealistic due to how moderate the Democrats are). I don't believe that RevCom runs any candidates either (I many be wrong). Since they don't run anybody and rely of the Democrats, wouldn't that just make them reformists? I just wonder if there is any REAL communist parties in the United States.

[RedWorker]

If other parties thought that the revolution should be made through elections they would be reformist even if listing their own candidates. But a communist party participating in elections is a legitimate position. Reformism would mean considering it the primary priority to make changes within the context of the bourgeois state and capitalist mode of production or pretending a revolution could be made through it.

[G4b3n]

Realistically, the left and the labor movement (or lack thereof) is not prepared to even talk about revolution. We need to start with organizing our workplaces through explicitly radical organizations. I would recommend joining the IWW. Their members range from anarchists to Leninists. The only official political stance they take is the complete abolition of capitalism. They are pretty much the only radical left organization in the U.S that really gets shit done, however small the victories may be.

Also, running candidates is shit, even the most radical of communists becomes inherently liberal once elected as a bourgeois state representative.

[Q]

This is a comprehensive but no doubt incomplete list (http://communism.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States). Whether they are 'legitimate' or not is up for debate.

[Peachman2000]

Their members range from anarchists to Leninists.

If a revolution were to occur, and the IWW led it, would there be further issues faced with creating a country? Anarchists wouldn't want government control, Leninists do. There would be major problems from the start. One that could lead into another war if the anarchists and Leninists split. Wouldn't you want the revolutionary party to agree on what to do after the revolution before it begins?

You can look at SYRIZA in Greece and see the rifts in that party. Similar things could occur if a party like the IWW led the revolution.

[#FF0000]

If a revolution were to occur, and the IWW led it, would there be further issues faced with creating a country? Anarchists wouldn't want government control, Leninists do. There would be major problems from the start. One that could lead into another war if the anarchists and Leninists split. Wouldn't you want the revolutionary party to agree on what to do after the revolution before it begins?

The IWW isn't an anarchist organization, strictly speaking, and doesn't have a "party line" beyond adhering to syndicalist tactics (whatever those are in 2015). I'm a communist and I'm a member of the IWW myself.

In any case, difference of opinion exists in all parties and organizations -- anarchist, Leninist, or otherwise. The Bolsheviks even had very strong and pronounced disagreements within their own party well on through the October revolution and beyond, even down to issues as central as whether or not an armed insurrection was desirable (this was a topic of debate less than a month before the actual October Revolution happened). So, yeah I think difference of opinion is inevitable. I think it's a little silly to think its' existence would make any progress impossible -- that's up to, in part, how the organization handles difference of opinion. The Leninist model of "democratic centralism", with its strict, military-style top-down organization and decision making process, with little to no tolerance for factions, hasn't worked out too well in hindsight.

[John Nada]

I know of the two major "Communist" parties in the United States (CPUSA, and RevCom), but are any of the legitimately trying to start a communist revolution? After looking at CPUSA, i see they don't even run candidates. They rely on the Democrats to create and enforce their policy's (which is unrealistic due to how moderate the Democrats are). I don't believe that RevCom runs any candidates either (I many be wrong). Since they don't run anybody and rely of the Democrats, wouldn't that just make them reformists? I just wonder if there is any REAL communist parties in the United States.They couldn't run for anything even if they wanted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 . So much for "democracy":lol:. Well, maybe in the Ninth Judicial District: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court , where the PSL and Socialist Alternative do put up candidates in some places, sometimes. Often the one's the PSL nominates for President are legally ineligible to be president, even if communists were allowed to be president. As far as I know, only the Socialist Alternative Party has one that got elected, to Seattle City Council.

From what I gather, the CPUSA supports the Democrats to "fight the ultra-right Republicans". Basically like a bastardized anti-fascist popular front hangover from WWII, and a zombie now that USSR is gone. They've basically devolved into social democrats in all but name.

The RCP has degenerated into a cult, that essentially worships their Chairman, Bob Avarkin.

Running for elections isn't what a real communist party's primary job is supposed to be. Under capitalism the house will always be stacked against socialism. The Democrats and Republicans will just re-draw the districts, dig up/ make up some bullshit to discredit them, invoke bullshit laws like the one I mentioned, or even launch a coup(which they've done in other countries, like Chile or Congo). They're not supposed to be just election machines like the Democrats and Republicans. The election and possibly the office they won is supposed to be a platform to argue for(possible aid) a revolution, maybe partially and temporarily ameliorate the workers' and oppressed peoples' living conditions till then. This happens in the streets, not in the halls of Congress or the White House.

As to whether most "keep it real" and stay true to their principles, or are even capable of that and effecting change on the ground, no. Not in my area, as far as I know, though some might be behind some protests/movements. Not sure about other parts of the US.
If a revolution were to occur, and the IWW led it, would there be further issues faced with creating a country? Anarchists wouldn't want government control, Leninists do. There would be major problems from the start. One that could lead into another war if the anarchists and Leninists split. Wouldn't you want the revolutionary party to agree on what to do after the revolution before it begins?Here's what Engels, co-founder of Marxism said of the Paris Commune (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune), the world's first dictatorship of the proletariat:
The members of the Commune were divided into a majority of the Blanquists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Auguste_Blanqui), who had also been predominant in the Central Committee of the National Guard; and a minority, members of the International Working Men’s Association, chiefly consisting of adherents of the Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) school of socialism. The great majority of the Blanquists at that time were socialist only by revolutionary and proletarian instinct; only a few had attained greater clarity on the essential principles, through Vaillant, who was familiar with German scientific socialism.[...]but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.
From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment.[b] What had been the characteristic attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests, originally through simple division of labor. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society, as can be seen, for example, not only in the hereditary monarchy, but equally also in the democratic republic. [b]Nowhere do “politicians” form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.Bold and links added by me. Source:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm That site has a lot of Marxists and some other socialists' works there free. Read some of it when you have the time.

You're never going to have everyone agree on everything, not even in one Leninist-type vanguard org. If some people are leading a revolution, then they must be doing something right to win the support of a lot of people and go that far. That bridge will be crossed when they get there.

[Vogel]

The communist and socialist parties of the US are jokes. They have absolutely no influence thanks to the breaking of the Left coalition we used to have, ie the thing that got FDR to do his reforms, in exchange for not committing a revolution. We used to be powerful enough to be able to threaten revolution, and be taken seriously by the President of the US.......... *Sighs*. But they decided to leave the capitalists in their places of power n society. Surprise, surprise, they peeled back the reforms we achieved. That's why reforms never work for capitalists.

http://www.rdwolff.com/ explains the current situation of the US pretty well.

[#FF0000]

They couldn't run for anything even if they wanted to:

There is no way in hell that they'd be able to enforce that law in 2015. Plus, the CPUSA ran presidential candidates until 1984, and other communist parties continue to run candidates to this day.


The communist and socialist parties of the US are jokes. They have absolutely no influence thanks to the breaking of the Left coalition we used to have, ie the thing that got FDR to do his reforms, in exchange for not committing a revolution. We used to be powerful enough to be able to threaten revolution, and be taken seriously by the President of the US.......... *Sighs*. But they decided to leave the capitalists in their places of power n society. Surprise, surprise, they peeled back the reforms we achieved. That's why reforms never work for capitalists.

http://www.rdwolff.com/ explains the current situation of the US pretty well.


The left in the US was certainly bigger in the past but lets not overstate things. Also, there's some irony in decrying reformism and then linking to Richard D Wolff's site (not that he doesn't have a good thing to say once in awhile).

[John Nada]

There is no way in hell that they'd be able to enforce that law in 2015. Plus, the CPUSA ran presidential candidates until 1984, and other communist parties continue to run candidates to this day.Yeah, many do/did run candidates. Still obviously more a protest than a serious campaign. And if one were to vote it's nice to have a "fuck you, capitalist" choice, along with state propositions(a reform often won due to efforts of socialists). Also even if a dirty commie can't win a federal office, local ones are very possible. Even though the local elections don't get as much attention, they're often more important than federal ones in day-to-day life. That IMO should be the focus.

That stupid law would likely get struck down by the current court, after the Supreme Court rules on it. Which is a long process, and still not guaranteed. The Democrats and Republicans would take it to court. They challenge each others elections results all the time(see 2000 election). They often try to keep the Green Party off the ballot, and often succeed.

The publicity from a Supreme Court case would be great. I'd expect the Democrats to blame (insert latter-day Eugene Debs) for everything horrible the Republican winner does, like Ralph Nader and the Green Party. It'd probably go more towards our(the US left's) favor this time. But we're not there just yet.
The left in the US was certainly bigger in the past but lets not overstate things.Yeah, I'm often surprised to find out a socialist organization was behind this and that protest/strike. They just don't say it in the news a lot of the time. Like during the police murder protest. Had no idea there was that many anarcho-communists where I lived.:ohmy:

I think the left can(and will) be stronger in the US.

[TheRadicalAntichrist]

The CPUSA is basically a wing of the Democratic Party, and I've had...less than flattering interactions with RevCom at actions in my city regarding Ferguson. The best way to describe them is "cultish", and their homophobia leaves quite a bit to be desired as well.

[Vogel]

The left in the US was certainly bigger in the past but lets not overstate things. Also, there's some irony in decrying reformism and then linking to Richard D Wolff's site (not that he doesn't have a good thing to say once in awhile).

Well, he does advocate taking away the power of the capitalists by democratizing the workplace. While it may not be the full fledge transformation we would like to see, he is one of the most popular, and rising, leftist figures in the US. His message reaches out to many, in a way many can understand. At the very least, his analysis is one of he best of our present conditions.

[MarxistWorld]

Well, what I think is that the great majority of workers, low-income people, and even the unemployed who earn zero dollars, still can find ways to eat and to get some of the basic needs that are needed to sustain life. I think that's one of the major motives of why if you talk about communism, marxism with any poor person in America you will get offended. Another factor is *fear*, most people in this world (not only in USA) are scared and are not warriors. That lack of warrior fighting mentality can also be a destroyer of motivation toward any way of thinking that is against *the tyranny of the majority*, that is against what is *in fashion*, that is against what is popular, what is accepted by the whole majjority. And according to Theodor Adorno, humans always choose the way of thinking that requires less fighting. It is a lot easier, and less risky to be a supporter of The Democratic Party and The Republican Party, than to be a supporter of a communist labor party. Another factor is that most humans, mopst people in USA are too sociable, and belong to a group, to an organization, to a church, to a society. And groups tend to mind-manipulate the ideology and thoughts of their members. And if any US citizen in a church, work-place or any other group (like their own family) says that the USA needs a dictatorship of the proletariat, that person will be bashed, trashed and destroyed by their own close friends and families.

Another factor against americans becoming communist is something Machiavelli said in the book The Prince, that it is real hard to convince people of a new way of thinking, of new institutions. Because humans are non-believers, and most humans have hard time believing in ideas that are new.

And last but not least I think another cause of why most people do not support third parties (not even Green Party) is something the writer Edgar Allan Poe said. Edgar Allan Poe said that most humans tend to support individuals, organizations and movements that are full of luxuries, brightness, a great marketing image, wealth and fame and popularity. That's another reason of why it is easier for the masses to vote for Democrats and Republicans who have a lot of economic power for their marketing psychologic tactics, than marxist leftist labor parties.

We have to be realistic about the economic power of marxist parties, that is very low. With just ideas and will power it is almost impossible to win the hearts and minds of people, compared with Democrats and Republicans who because of their economic power can invest a lot more in great psychologic advertising campaigns







Realistically, the left and the labor movement (or lack thereof) is not prepared to even talk about revolution. We need to start with organizing our workplaces through explicitly radical organizations. I would recommend joining the IWW. Their members range from anarchists to Leninists. The only official political stance they take is the complete abolition of capitalism. They are pretty much the only radical left organization in the U.S that really gets shit done, however small the victories may be.

Also, running candidates is shit, even the most radical of communists becomes inherently liberal once elected as a bourgeois state representative.