American Comrades - Is this true?

[Eastside Revolt]

In my Political Studies class today, my teacher said that the reason that there is no Communist Party in the States, is because it is illegal to be a communist. Is this true?

[Iepilei]

Not really. There is a communist party in the United States now, there has always been some form of one (even during the McCarthy era). Nowadays we're not directly lynched or convicted for treason. Ridicule and slander is the bulk of what we get now.

Harrassment from police officials is common. Many communists in America have just converted to social democrats, but the concept of socialism is almost a banned one. Very few americans acknowledge any socialist countries as existing (or being successful).

The government does keep records on communist members, though. Both from the US and immigrants. A few years back, a friend of our family moved to the states from Britian to be with her husband. When she was filling out the paper work, they asked her if she had ever been affiliated with any communist party.

"No", she replied.

"Then could you explain this?"

They opened up her file to remove a French leftist newspaper, with her picture at the party's annual banquet. Apparantly her friend was the caterer, so he invited her and she got her picture taken sometime during the night.


(Edited by Iepilei at 9:55 pm on Mar. 28, 2003)

[Eastside Revolt]

Well no wonder your country is in such a sorry state then.

It had always baffled me that America had such disstrust in their government and yet they do not even attempt to change it. I now know why.

[mentalbunny]

So what would happen if suddenly loads of Commies wanted to come into the States? That would be so cool...

[Just Joe]

the main party i would suspect is the CPUSA. i think the US authorities may have good reason to watch them as i've heard they have a stockpile of weapons and train people for armed struggle.

[Exploited Class]

They have tinkered with the idea back in the 50's and it pops its head up again to make it treason.

They do however have a lot of laws requiring you to have faith in an higher being to take office.

The reason that keep such records of people is because these people (communist) represent removing wealth and power from the centralized 1% percent of the population. Any threat to the power structure is a direct threat to them so of course they will expend resources to protect their assets, power and control.

This point they have done such a great job of getting the large religious base to think of Communism as evil, communism is sold as anti-american and anti-humanity. They have pretty much gotten their messages of fear and misunderstanding across so well to the classes below them that they all hate communism. Which works great for them to retain power.

They don't have to pass any laws.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Just Joe on 11:36 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
the main party i would suspect is the CPUSA. i think the US authorities may have good reason to watch them as i've heard they have a stockpile of weapons and train people for armed struggle.


You just described about 1/4 of the american population I think. :)

[Wolfie]

Well youve noted one good thing, that they are stockpiling weapons. In Britiain our party cant do that as it is illegal to own any type of firearm unless you have a license and you can only get them for extremely low calibre pistols and even then they cost hundreds.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Wolfie on 1:05 am on Mar. 29, 2003
Well youve noted one good thing, that they are stockpiling weapons. In Britiain our party cant do that as it is illegal to own any type of firearm unless you have a license and you can only get them for extremely low calibre pistols and even then they cost hundreds.

Not really, because I don't care how many weapons you have, if you don't have something to match the 400 Billion dollar budget of the US, you aren't going to overthrow it with force.

Remember Rome did not collapse from the inside, for good reason.

[Wolfie]

Well surly it puts a certain amout of pressure on the local govt, it shows there serious.

[Pete]

Rome was internally weaked at the time of its collapse. The empire had just been split in half because it was becoming unwieldy. There army turned from a proffesional civilian army to one of mercenaries and forgieners hoping to gain citizenship.

But it is true. Rome fell from the outside. The inside had been eaten away first. And the people where appeased with games. That is why the Coloseum and Circus Maximus where in Rome, but Constantinople did a better job, and there verisons of the great stadiums where much bigger.

It seems that America has a huge entertainment infastrucutre, and that some people hold these peoples opinions higher than they deserve. The flack supporting the war that comes from washington alomst shows a divide in America. Politics and Entertainment. East and West. I doubt that any entertainer will gain political power, but that is not heard of since one of America's presidents was the guy with the monkey in B-rated films.

Pressure on local governments means nothing. I doubt the US constitution even recongizes there existance. I know that the Canadian one does not. THe province creates and almagamates 'counties' and 'cities' as they wish. This could be done to make sure that for ever dissdent voting base, there is a much larger base in line, so that power will always stay in the same hands. Just a simple redrawing of electorial boundires, splitting the most militant in two, combining those groups with a pacified riding and no more threat to elections.

Every 4 years the Canadian government does this, although they do it by population. But last year northern Ontario lost 3 seats, while toronto gained 4. Toronto is much more Liberal then N. Ontario, which is traditonally NDP. Although the election comitee is non partisan, I doubt that anything truly is in America. The power of maps will play into the hands of the New Empire.

[Anarcho]

Just to clarify...

In the US, 2 out of 3 homes has a firearm in it.

-and-

While there are many oaths that are taken, the inclusion of God, in any form is voluntary. Many local level politicians have removed that part of oaths completely. If a US president did not wish to swear his oath on a bible, he wouldn't have to.

The fact that most of them do is just as much politics as it is personal religion.

In the US, no religion is compelled, or given preference by the gov't.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Anarcho on 4:24 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
Just to clarify...

While there are many oaths that are taken, the inclusion of God, in any form is voluntary. Many local level politicians have removed that part of oaths completely. If a US president did not wish to swear his oath on a bible, he wouldn't have to.

The fact that most of them do is just as much politics as it is personal religion.

In the US, no religion is compelled, or given preference by the gov't.

No, in the south for many political and civic positions there are laws, still on the books, that require the person holding the office to not be an aethist. They dont say the person has to be christian, just that they can not be aethists.

[redstar2000]

"I've heard the [CPUSA] has a stockpile of weapons and trains people for armed struggle." :cheesy:

From time to time, JustJoe, we all make statements about other countries that are so distant from reality as to provoke hilarity. This time I'm afraid the joke's on you.

The Communist Party USA in its "glory years" (say 1920 to 1940 or so) was a pretty militant party...and it might have gathered some arms for local labor struggles.

As to having any kind of perspective involving armed struggle for revolution, that is simply a joke. Sure, maybe in 1920 or 1921, when the impact of the Russian Revolution was at its maximum, some of them may have toyed with the idea. But in a serious way? Like say the Irish did prior to 1916? No way.

In fact, during World War II, the CPUSA really became the left-wing of the Democratic Party and have remained so ever since. They compete for influence within the Democratic Party with groups like the Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America.

In other words, in practice they are all bourgeois liberals regardless of ritual homage to Marx or Lenin or anyone else.

Revolution as a real possibility would cause them to piss themselves in fright. :o

I think a realistic perspective for communist revolution in the U.S. would have to involve something like the massive protests and disruptions that took place in Eastern Europe and the USSR; actual violence would be minor but the system would be brought to a grinding halt. (Also May 1968 in France would be instructive.)

Meanwhile, in present-day America, the political persecutions most likely to take place are directed against active or potentially active opponents of U.S. imperialism...regardless of other political views. Even a conservative who opposed the war would not necessarily be safe. (!)

:cool:

[Resorte]

I totally agree with you the revolution that we may see in America is closer to Martin Luther King jr. than Che. The armed struggle is a part of the past, started with Cuba in 59’ die in the 90’s in El Salvador. We need another Martin Luther Kink to open up the minds of the American people, another Che or Castro??? is going to unity the American people and is going to allow the government to continue with the imperialist politics. Remember corporate America controls the public opinion and they could convert the next Che into the next Sadam

[hazard]

Just a typical example of equivocation as used by a Capitalist regime. Freedom of speech is really free market publication. Freedom of the press is really only free market press. Hell, all freedom is really only in reference to the "free" market. And f course, this sense is switched with the true sense of the word freedom in order to convinve people they are free when they really are not.

As for the Communist party, I, also being Canadian, was taught the same thing about the pigs in the south. Being a communist had one hunted, labelled and executed until not so long ago. Of course, Canada is and still is not much mkore leniant. Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no Communist party in America because the COmmunist party is against "freedom". And we all know what that really means. Instead of saying what the communists are really opposed to (the free market ), the lying capitalist pigs state that they are opposed to democracy. And once again there is an equivocation made between what the capitalists mean by democracy and what democracy really means. Enough of this. My head spins and my stomach turns just thinking about it.

Illegal? Not according to the actual laws. But protected under the laws? Not a chance.

[Anarcho]

hazard- That's crap. There have been Workers Party rallies and marches since the 40's. They are protected under the same laws as everyone.

You may agree or disagree with what America may stand (or stood) for, but you hav to admit that the system is usually willing to give everyone their chance to stand and speak, no matter how vile the things they may have to say are.

[hazard]

anarcho:

I didnt say that the us didn't have social movements. they certainly did. but still, only socialist. there isn't even a socialist political party in the states, let alone the bonafide, undisguised and exposed idea of a communist party.

perhaps if the counter culture movement of the sixties hadn't been brutally supressed by the fascists things would be different. but the fact remains that all real political, revolutionary change started and ended in the sixties.

did you know that only 13% of americans belong toa union? thats down SEVEN PERCENT in the last decade.

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar 2000 are you sure about what you about the CPUSA?

I mean I know they aren't the most radical of folks but neither are they how you just described them. I mean they do uphold the USSR (perhaps far to much) and I don't think the average Democrat doing the same. I believe that they are just against idealism and 'Ultra-leftism' when it come's to a revolution in the U$. I mean they would be correct to say that a attempted uprising would quickly be crushed and would alienate even more Communists in general. I think the reason they compete for infulence in the Democrat party is because they want to build a mass party of the working class that can then confront Capital on a equal footing.

[Anarcho]

How many are supposed to? The truth is, that America has shifted away from Labor intensive workbase, and more and more American's are working in the service industry, or in the technical world. Add to that worries of corruption and crony-ism, and it's no wonder that the vast majority of Unions are slowly dying.

The problem that I've seen, here and in other places, is that those that are Left seem to feel that Unions are a hotbed of Socialist activity. It's not true... I would be willing to bet that most Union members, particularly those of the so-called 'working class' are more consistently conservative (Republican) than hose outside of the Unions.

http://www.cpusa.org/
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
http://www.socialism.com/
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/
http://www.plp.org/

These are just a small sampling of Socialist or Communist movements active within the US.

As for the counter-culture being brutally suppressed... I don't think so. Sure, there were some rather vivid media portrayals of rioting or National Guard troops marching against political marches, but those, like the violent peace protests of today, were in the minority.

The big reason the "counter-culture" of the 60's died out is that so many of those involved in it were doing so purely because it was the cool thing to do. Most of them grew up, got jobs, and became yuppies and baby-boomers of the 80's.

[Just Joe]

well redstar2000, I have to say that I'm not all that informed about CPUSA. Its just something I keep hearing about them being armed. From what you've said, Its most likely garbage. And when it comes to some sort of revolution in the United States, I really don't think a party called Communist stands much chance. Maybe The Workers Party or something along those lines would be better.

[redstar2000]

Cassius, I said they try for influence over the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party now...a wing that in itself is down to less than a quarter of the party. Of course, the "average Democrat" (think Bill Clinton) doesn't "support the USSR"...but the CPUSA's stance is a historical one. It's not as if they now (or have for a very long time) uphold the USSR as any kind of "model" for the United States.

Of course, drifting rightward is always "justified" as building links with the working masses...since we all "know" that the average worker is a "conservative twat." The problem with this sort of "analysis" is that even if it were accurate, it would only insure that which it purports to "deplore." If you treat people as hard-core conservative dummies and water-down everything you say to them in order to avoid giving offense...then they'll stay right where they are now. You have given them no reason to change their views.

It is ultimately an act of condescension toward the working class not to tell them what we think in a straightforward way. Our views, after all, are shocking...and most people are initially upset when they hear them. But hear them they must...if they are ever to consider accepting them.

Without getting bogged down in the history of the 1960s, I can tell folks first hand what and when the turning point was: May 4th, 1970...Kent State (Ohio)...when the Ohio National Guard murdered four unarmed students and wounded dozens of others.

It was a drastic shock; it is one thing to learn a lot of anti-imperialist and communist rhetoric...it is quite another to see the naked face of the ruling class. Protest against the war would continue and unorganized resistance to the draft increased to the point where conscription had to be abandoned; but the "confidence" or "heart" had gone out of the struggle. We painfully discovered what millions have people have had to learn...ruling classes are really serious about holding on to their power and murder doesn't bother them a bit.

Finally, I really do wish people would stop this stupid longing for a redeemer; another Che or another Martin Luther King or another Lenin, etc. One man ain't going to free you, no matter how "great" he is.

Recall the words of Gene Debs: "I would not lead you into the promised land even if I could; because if I could lead you in, the next sonofa***** could lead you right back out!"

Break the chains in your own head, help others to break their chains, and when enough of you have done so, you will need no great leader...you will be strong enough to liberate a country and even a planet.

And maybe this time, you will stay liberated.

:cool:

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar by no means do I support the CPUSA's current stance on things, just merely try to understand it and see why they are taking the choice/s they are. I think describing them as 'bourgesie liberals' is a step to far.

You say that they don't 'uphold the USSR as a model' I thought that was precisly what they did. So much so they are criticised by every sought of leftist from the 'Socialists' on one side to the PLP on the other.

Speaking of the PLP I would favor there attidude to things far more, 'No compromise' with the ruling class atall so to speak.

Anyway as a 'Stalinist' you know pretty much I would be tempted to call the CPUSA a bunch of 'Revisionists'. But I think you are too harsh on them, that and one of the people who orginally convinced me of the evils of Capitalism was a CPUSA member.

[redstar2000]

Well, Cassius, you decide. If the CPUSA's message to people is to vote for Larry Liberal, what does that make them in practice?

From what I've heard, I think the CPUSA was so embarrassed by Khrushchev's "Stalin speech" and the invasion of Hungary in 1956 that they haven't even mentioned the USSR since.

Actually, the Progressive Labor Party is much more forthright in defending the USSR, 1917-1953. I think you'd like them.

:cool:

[Cassius Clay]

To the point of the CPUSA telling people to vote for 'Larry Liberal'. Well given current circumstances in the world I'm sure you'll admit that 'Anybody but Bush in 2004' is a fair enough policy. True U$ will still exploit the world, but the difference will be the chances of WW3 and millions killed will be less.

I feel it also neccassary to point out that the CPUSA points out 'Inter-Imperialist rivalries' over Iraq for example, whereas alot of protestors have 'Hail Chirac' signs at rallies. I visited their website and judging from that they correctly acknowledge that there is little difference between Republican and Democrat never the less there is a difference, small maybe but a difference.

Anyway the CPUSA only got rid of the image of being Moscow's party when Gorbachev came around, doing it before alot more other parties in the west I believe. Ofcourse in my opinion they should of done it 30 years earlier but better late than never.

True I like the PLP alot more and I'm not actually sure why I'm defending the CPUSA so much. But you should know I'm not a radical Maoist and I hardly think dismissing Cuba is productive.

[redstar2000]

What you are overlooking, Cassius, is that Larry Liberal is just as capable of starting the next imperialist war as Charley Conservative. Imperialist war is built-in to the capitalist system.

Who were the architects of the war in Vietnam? John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson...two "stellar" liberals, both supported by the CPUSA.

If a Democrat is elected U.S. president in 2004, he may well wish to "prove" his hawkishness even more than Bush...and decide to invade North Korea, for example.

My point is that there is no real difference...the "mainstream" of American politics is imperialist, period.

Nor is that likely to change unless there is a catastrophic defeat of U.S. imperialism in one or several places around the world. (Better several!)

:cool:

[Iepilei]

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question26

Was the CPUSA Ever Banned by the U.S. Government?

The answer is both yes and no. The CP was never banned as a political party in name by the US government. However, the CP has had its leaders sent to prison for long terms for teaching Marxism-Leninism, has been declared illegal in more than a few states, and has been the target of numerous forms of official and unofficial government repression.



...below it expresses the parties stance towards the CCCP.

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:07 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Cassius, I said they try for influence over the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party now...a wing that in itself is down to less than a quarter of the party. Of course, the "average Democrat" (think Bill Clinton) doesn't "support the USSR"...but the CPUSA's stance is a historical one. It's not as if they now (or have for a very long time) uphold the USSR as any kind of "model" for the United States.

Of course, drifting rightward is always "justified" as building links with the working masses...since we all "know" that the average worker is a "conservative twat." The problem with this sort of "analysis" is that even if it were accurate, it would only insure that which it purports to "deplore." If you treat people as hard-core conservative dummies and water-down everything you say to them in order to avoid giving offense...then they'll stay right where they are now. You have given them no reason to change their views.

It is ultimately an act of condescension toward the working class not to tell them what we think in a straightforward way. Our views, after all, are shocking...and most people are initially upset when they hear them. But hear them they must...if they are ever to consider accepting them.

Without getting bogged down in the history of the 1960s, I can tell folks first hand what and when the turning point was: May 4th, 1970...Kent State (Ohio)...when the Ohio National Guard murdered four unarmed students and wounded dozens of others.

It was a drastic shock; it is one thing to learn a lot of anti-imperialist and communist rhetoric...it is quite another to see the naked face of the ruling class. Protest against the war would continue and unorganized resistance to the draft increased to the point where conscription had to be abandoned; but the "confidence" or "heart" had gone out of the struggle. We painfully discovered what millions have people have had to learn...ruling classes are really serious about holding on to their power and murder doesn't bother them a bit.

Finally, I really do wish people would stop this stupid longing for a redeemer; another Che or another Martin Luther King or another Lenin, etc. One man ain't going to free you, no matter how "great" he is.

Recall the words of Gene Debs: "I would not lead you into the promised land even if I could; because if I could lead you in, the next sonofa***** could lead you right back out!"

Break the chains in your own head, help others to break their chains, and when enough of you have done so, you will need no great leader...you will be strong enough to liberate a country and even a planet.

And maybe this time, you will stay liberated.

:cool:


"...What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?"

:)

[praxis1966]

A few points of order from a former Social Science major (and please don't mistake this for capitalist tendencies):

1) The only reason that religious oaths for public office are required in some states of the union is that the ACLU has not bothered to challenge them yet. If you really want to do something about this, contact them and get a law suit filed on your behalf. They take all of their cases pro bono and I'm sure would be more than happy to do it.

2) While societal pressure here in the States against communism is immense, I don't know of any current law against the formation of a communist leaning party. In any case, the Green Party had the closest thing to a commie candidate by the name of Ralph Nader last election. While not communist or socialist by definition, I think the people here would find most of their agenda quite agreeable if not to narrow in scope.

3) Internal documents from within the Kennedy administration suggest that he had a plan to get the U.S. out of Vietnam by the end of 1966, without firing shot one. There were also memorandums expressing his intentions that would have basically dismantled the intelligence communty as it was then known, as well placing the Justice Department ergo the F.B.I. under direct control of the Office of the President. Without getting much further into conspiracy theories, this was probably the real cause of his death.

4) The U.S. government had been murdering radicals long before Kent State. Just look at what happened to Fred Hampton and his fellow Panthers years before, murdered in their sleep. Or perhaps COINTELPRO, or even the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. IMO the reason Kent has so much noteriety in the history textbooks is white kids got hurt. No offense Redstar, I'm not out to start arguments with fellow revolutionaries. This disregard of other heinous acts perpetrated by the U.S. government only serves to demonstrate the racism and culture of lies in our history textbooks. I like to call it "Historical White-Washing."

I welcome any response to these points, as dialogue is (at least according to Friere) the most critical element of any revolutionary movement.

[redstar2000]

praxis1966, of course you are quite right about the on-going murder of African-American activists; indeed, at the very time of Kent State there were also murders at Jackson State College (Mississippi) and in Orangeburg, South Carolina...which while reported nationally received nothing even approaching the publicity around Kent State.

This sounds "terrible" to say, but the official murder of black people in America is normal...there's really nothing particularly unusual about it. :o

Kent State was "special" in part because it was an unarmed and nonviolent demonstration of white kids who were fired upon. They never expected to be treated in the same way that black people are normally treated...and it was a real shock. The words that YerbaMateJ quoted express that shock; they are from the song Four Dead in Ohio by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young and even received mainstream radio play.

The angriest demonstration I was ever in took place the day after the murders; there was no violence but the mood was such that the police did not dare to fuck with us...though we had no permit and marched through downtown in the middle of the evening rush hour. In the days that followed the murders, something like 130 colleges and universities were effectively closed by student strikes.

Millions of American students learned what America is really like...and reacted with outrage and fear.

-----------------------------------

As to JFK, I'm aware that there is a flurry of activity among some historians to "rehabilitate" his regime from a leftist perspective...but I don't buy it. For one thing, as the president, he had endless opportunities to abruptly end U.S. involvement in Vietnam any time he wished...or at least publicly state that the adventure was over. He never did that or gave any public hint that he was planning to do that. The second objection is tangential but relevant: the Justice Department was under the rule of his brother Robert...and nothing of substance was done by federal officials to protect civil rights workers in the South, three of whom were ultimately murdered. Had JFK and Robert Kennedy cracked down on the Klan types back in 1961 or 1962, those murders might never have taken place. My last objection has to do with the plots to assassinate Fidel Castro which originated with JFK and which Robert was in charge of following up...to the point where even the CIA privately complained about Bobby's daily phone calls. I think that the definitive account of the Kennedy regime is The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh (ISBN 0316359556).

JFK was a bourgeois liberal...and a war-criminal.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:05 am on April 1, 2003)

[praxis1966]

I'm not familiar with that work, but I'll certainly check it out now that I'm aware of it. If you would like something of a qualification of the internal documents I spoke about, check out On the Trail of the Assasins by Jim Garrison. The point is that his mere cogitations went so against the grain of the military-industrial complex that it cost him his life. I agree that at least in theory Kennedy could have gotten out of Vietnam whenever he wanted, but there was both political pressure from outside the administration as well as from the sacred cows known as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kennedy could not have risked another political suicide in Vietnam as had occured in the Bay of Pigs. I agree with you that he never should have started that business in the first place (the aforementioned military and CIA interventions), but the political climate around him was such that he had no choice.

As far as the Kent v. Black argument goes, I did not mean to imply that the murder of Panthers, Jackson State students and others was not covered by mainstream media at the time. Certainly they were. I was simply talking about the complete lack of mention of these incidents in the textbooks I read as a junior in high school (1994-95) as well as the ones currently used today. In other words, if all you knew of American history you learned in present day schools, you'd be pretty damned ignorant.

By the way, did you go to school in Ohio back then? My father was at the University of Miami, Ohio when the Kent State killings occured. A short time later, protestors at his school were attacked nearly as visciously, only this time by the state police instead of the National Guard.