Stalinism and the CPUSA

[heiss93]

I think one of the reasons the CPUSA has been so unquestioning in its loyal to the COMINTERN is NOT because they were "slaves of Moscow" but because they were fundamentally an American party. Policy shifts in Moscow did not change the nature of the CPUSA as much as it affeted Maoist parties.

The CPUSA of 1945 was no more "Stalinist" than the CPUSA of 1965. For sectarian parties the labels Maoist, Stalinist, Hoxahist, are all defining. But the CPUSA is defined by policies in America. Thus calling the 1930s CPUSA "Stalinist" or the 1980s CP "Brehnevites" is silly.

The ultra-left who say that the CPUSA was good up till "the death of Lenin", or the "death of Stalin" or the Sino-Soviet split, or 1991 or any other world historical date miss the point.

The only two foreign policy events that shook the internal structure of the CP was the Invasion of Czechoslavakia in 1968 and the Fall in 1991.

The others are mostly exagerated by sectarians who mechanistically apply foreign models and assume the CPUSA does likewise, and McCarthists who think they can know the CP by knowing the Kremlin

[Comrade Rage]

I've never applied any 'foreign' labels to the CP, they are Browderites: a revisionist bunch that is essentially divorced from the working class. Tehy're liberals.

[Andres Marcos]

I've never applied any 'foreign' labels to the CP, they are Browderites: a revisionist bunch that is essentially divorced from the working class. Tehy're liberals.

I would say though they have really managed to trick a lot of workers into fallin g into their trap its infuriating, just look at their program and you can find that these guys are just a little to the left of democrats.

[Random Precision]

I think one of the reasons the CPUSA has been so unquestioning in its loyal to the COMINTERN is NOT because they were "slaves of Moscow" but because they were fundamentally an American party. Policy shifts in Moscow did not change the nature of the CPUSA as much as it affeted Maoist parties.

The Comintern was disposed of almost 20 years before Maoism arrived on the scene.


The CPUSA of 1945 was no more "Stalinist" than the CPUSA of 1965. For sectarian parties the labels Maoist, Stalinist, Hoxahist, are all defining. But the CPUSA is defined by policies in America. Thus calling the 1930s CPUSA "Stalinist" or the 1980s CP "Brehnevites" is silly.

O RLY? Then how would you explain these things?

- The expulsion of both the Left Opposition and the Right Opposition, as occurred in Moscow
- The Popular Front, during which communism became just another word for "20th Century Americanism" :laugh:
- The subsequent break with the Popular Front following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
- The return to the Popular Front, complete with an attempt to dissolve the Party into the Democrats during WW2
- The general lapse into reformism during Stalin's final years, which reached its apex under Khrushchev and Brezhnev

So I agree it would be silly to call the 1930s CP Stalinist while calling the 1980s CP Brezhnevite is silly- it was Stalinist ever since the thirties, and bears all the traits of Stalinism today.


The ultra-left who say that the CPUSA was good up till "the death of Lenin", or the "death of Stalin" or the Sino-Soviet split, or 1991 or any other world historical date miss the point.

No one claims that the CP was only good until the death of Lenin- I would argue that it only became completely unsalvageable in the very late twenties, as did all the other Comintern organizations.

[turquino]

The question of which Soviet leader the party was supporting at what time is not interesting. The CPUSA has always been opportunistic and more inclined to build a broad based party rather than one interested in defending national and proletarian liberation. Through the 1920s-50s, their white male leadership was more interested in winning over relatively privileged whites rather than focusing on the aspirations and revolutionary potential of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. They were afraid of upsetting racists in the trade union movement, so they toned it down for their benefit. There were good communists in the Communist Party, but they were poorly lead and the party was never sufficiently revolutionary to pose a threat to america.

-turquino

[hekmatista]

The question of which Soviet leader the party was supporting at what time is not interesting. The CPUSA has always been opportunistic and more inclined to build a broad based party rather than one interested in defending national and proletarian liberation. Through the 1920s-50s, their white male leadership was more interested in winning over relatively privileged whites rather than focusing on the aspirations and revolutionary potential of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. They were afraid of upsetting racists in the trade union movement, so they toned it down for their benefit. There were good communists in the Communist Party, but they were poorly lead and the party was never sufficiently revolutionary to pose a threat to america.

-turquino
If memory serves, they did adopt a position in favor of the "Black Belt Nation" based on Stalin's National Colonial Question during the Molotov "Third Period," but it was abandoned by the time the Browderites became dominant. You'ed have to be as old as Nelson Peery to remember it though.

[redSHARP]

i always thought the CPUSA was legit. like stated earlier, it was an american party with american values. though not 100% commie, i always thought they had their shit together more than the other parties.

I thought the CPUSA was funded and had contacts with GRU personal. however, the CPUSA does state that it was never a moscow puppet, and from what i have seen, i think they are telling the truth.

[Dros]

however, the CPUSA does state that it was never a moscow puppet, and from what i have seen, i think they are telling the truth.

The CPUSA organized spying operations for the KGB as demonstrated by hundreds of CPUSA and KGB documents.

[redSHARP]

didnt almost every leftist group have soviet contacts?

[mononokifool]

The CPUSA is not communist although they say they are marxist-leninist

[Zeus the Moose]

didnt almost every leftist group have soviet contacts?

I kind of doubt that the Socialist Workers Party did, being the counter-revolutionary Trotsko-imperialists that they were. ;)

[hekmatista]

I kind of doubt that the Socialist Workers Party did, being the counter-revolutionary Trotsko-imperialists that they were. ;)
Funny you should say that, since the Workers' League tendency of Trotskyism for years accused the SWP leadership of being penetrated by GPU agents.