Qwerty489
6th July 2008, 23:43
Well, having read the thread 'US communists, ever hopeful, say they're coming back', I felt very compelled to quickly sign up here and give my reply, especially towards those liberals who think they are revolutionary because they oppose a different shade of bourgeois politics, as opposed to the softly-softly approach of the Democrats. I think one of the most important issues in revolutionary politics, and specifically in combating revisionism, is the issue of attacking the fringe. Left-liberals will often attack the most opportunistic target, some outrageous far-right racist for example, because to challenge the mainstream of the bourgeois system would be too radical for them.
Firstly, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the CPUSA. As far as I know I have never met anyone who was affiliated with the CPUSA at the time of our meeting. I embraced Marxism-Leninism when I had already left the US, so we don't really have a history. Yet early on I read many critiques of their ideology, if you can even call it that, and even the most scathing seem far too generous. Using terms like "tailing the Democrats" is just far too nice; it would be just as accurate to say "kissing the Democratic Party's collective ass more passionately than a sizable portion of America's liberals, most of whom grew fed up with the Democrats in 2006 if not 2004."
What follows is not another analysis of the CPUSA's history of revisionism and betrayal of Marxism. Subjects like that have been dealt with plenty of times. Enver Hoxha dealt with the issue of 'Browderism' and the CPUSA in 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism. My aim in writing here is to simply ask, 'What does it take for these people to realize that they are revisionists, of the most impotent sort, possibly in the entire world?' How can they put out the line they do, and still call themselves a 'Communist' party? It's not as if there aren't plenty of revisionist parties in the world today, but most of these parties exist in countries with proportional representation, and thus they actually run candidates in elections. As such, many of them hold seats in their respective nations' parliaments, and due to this they are, reformist though they might be, at least able to exercise some power in the interests of the working class. For an example, while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation(KPRF) and their program may be far from Marxist-Leninist, at least they have a program, they run candidates in hopes of implementing it, and the accomplishment of their goals would have real meaning for working people. More than this, it would raise the prominence of class struggle in 'mainstream' political discussion, as well as create an environment that raises class awareness in general, assuming there is a real Marxist-Leninist party present to take advantage of the situation.
The CPUSA, due to its extreme revisionism, deserves a little credit here and there. In terms of its history, perhaps a lot of credit. The US labor movement owes a great deal of gratitude to Communists and their fellow-travelers, and one has to understand the massive negative effect things such as the second Red Scare of the McCarthy era as well as the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other events, gutted the party and organized labor in general. While there were revisionists like Earl Browder, there were also great leaders such as William Z. Foster. Perhaps most admirable is the fact that CPUSA played a crucial role in the recruitment and organization of the Lincoln, Washington, and MacKenzie-Papineau battalions, which fought for the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. But today their revisionism seems so blatant that there are many 'liberals' that stand to the left of them, and its no longer anarchists this time.
The revisionism of the CPUSA is so extremely pronounced that one need not even read their program to see it; just visit their website at any given time and read some of their statements. Take for example, an article from the CPUSA's 'Labor Up Front' newsletter I found on their site just a couple days ago. Apparently Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), was giving a pep-talk at a Hillary Clinton rally, and said some negative things about Barack Obama. I can remember about a month ago when it seemed like they were supporting both Hillary and Obama unquestionably. Given the fact that Obama since pulled ahead in the primaries, it is now apparent why they were supporting both Clinton and Obama as opposed to someone far more progressive, such as Kucinich. Basically, they support whoever is likely to win the nomination, and support democrats unquestionably. Take a look at some excerpts from this article alone.
Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists' union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)
Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.
In the first place it’s ironic that a labor leader should ridicule good oratory. The history of the labor movement is replete with labor leaders who inspired and moved workers to action with their ability to put into words the hopes, aspirations and demands of those who dream of a better life and a better world for working people.
Eugene Debs spoke eloquently of an industrial union for rail workers. One of his most famous speeches called for an end to workers dying in WWI as cannon fodder for the narrow interests of the industrialists and capitalists. He brought millions into the labor movement and got millions of votes on the Socialist Party ticket with his inspiring speeches. 1
Granted there is one good reason to attack the guy in question; he supports Hillary Clinton. Clinton as a the nominee is a surefire loss for the Democratic Party in 2008. A direct repeat of 2004's Kerry vs. Bush. Of course if one was reading the CPUSA's rhetoric, both a Clinton or Obama victory would be a triumph. As such they don't really have room to criticize. The bizarre thing is that they actually believe that somehow an Obama victory will be good for the working class. Head on over to the ultra-left PLP and you'll get the real scoop on Obama, such as this article and here's another one. Have a look at the Maoist RCP's Revolution Newspaper and you'll find more ugly truth about Obama. As far as 'Communist' parties go, the CPUSA is the only one fooled by Obama. Hell, it's not just Communists that aren't buying Obama's nonsense, take a look at Black Agenda Report for example. And keep in mind we're only talking about Obama here; the CPUSA actually found Hillary to be a desirable candidate before Obama started pulling ahead. Whereas after 2004 serious 'progressives' became increasingly critical of the Democratic party, particularly after 2006's midterm elections, it's all good with the CPUSA. Any Democrat will do.
So how is this related to the CPUSA's line? Revisionism usually means a Communist Party weakening its own platform until it becomes a social democratic party at best. The CPUSA is far beyond revisionism; they're not just tailing liber- uh..I mean progressives, they're kissing the ass of the Democratic party itself. Mainstream democrats are the same people who used to call themselves liberals, and out of sheer cowardice started calling themselves "progressives". Their candidates are so weak that they rarely even refer to themselves as progressives. And why? All because a fat guy on the radio and a couple hundred of his clones were allowed to make "liberal" a dirty word, and the liberals didn't have the balls to fight back. And those are people in which the CPUSA wants the working class to put its trust. As bizarre as the situation is, it is not some kind of fluke or strategy, the roots of this ultra-revisionism can be found right in the party's own program.
See, the CPUSA doesn't wage a class struggle. In the bizarre, G-rated Marxism of the modern CPUSA, the struggle is against something called "the ultra-right." Take a look at an excerpt from their party program:
The working class and all who work for a living—the vast majority of the people—face a relentless, vicious, and amoral enemy: the capitalist class. Our country is oppressed by one of the most controlling, despicable, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever, concentrating enormous political, economic, and military power in the hands of a few transnational corporations. These corporations seek to steal, embezzle, extort, and scheme all wealth from the tens of millions of working people, from small businesses and family farmers, from men, women, and children, from seniors and youth, and from the employed, underemployed, and unemployed. They exploit people as workers on the job and the same people as consumers at the checkout counter. Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism, used to divide working people and achieve extra profits. They work hard to extend ultra-right control over the government and government policy.
The ultra-right is led by the most reactionary, militaristic, racist, anti-democratic sectors of the transnationals. They gain support for their ultra-right agenda from other political trends and social groups, most of which are misled as to their real interests, sometimes blinded by the propaganda of fear and scapegoating.
Note that in the first paragraph, the program points out that the working class and the capitalist class are enemies. Yet right after that it says that Americans have a certain type of capitalist class, 'the most controlling, despicable, entrenched' etc. Immediately we see the major problems with this kind of reasoning. For Communists, a capitalist class is a capitalist class; there may be different shades under various conditions, but this is mostly inconsequential. Based on this it follows that the CPUSA's statement here is incorrect, the American ruling class does not fit that description, at least at this time. The control of the ruling class of Russia, for example, is far more controlling and entrenched than that of the US. But the illusion of a special 'evil' ruling class in modern times is designed to set up the straw-man enemy known as "the ultra-right". What exactly is the 'ultra-right'? Let's find out:
The first tendency represents the most reactionary section of the transnationals. It took over the Republican Party and in 1980 elected Ronald Reagan and then in 1988 George H. W. Bush as President. In the 1970s and dramatically escalating following the election of Reagan, the U.S. government increased the U.S. military build-up. Across the “mainstream” political spectrum, among most Republican and Democratic elected officials, support for capitalist globalization led to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the WTO, and other international trade agreements and organizations, and to increased outsourcing of union manufacturing jobs. It attacked the very existence of unions and bargaining rights, imposed tax cuts for the rich, cut social programs, demonized foreign opponents of the U.S., covertly funded the right-wing-initiated civil war in Nicaragua, and gave weapons to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq. They picked small countries to invade, including Panama and Grenada, testing new military equipment and strategy, and breaking down resistance at home and abroad to U.S. military invasion as a policy option.
While the ultra-right suffered some setbacks during the Clinton years, it did not receive a major lasting rebuff. The election of Clinton led the ultra-right to step up attacks on Democrats, liberals, and all social programs, and to intensify their efforts in a vast right-wing conspiracy. With the election to the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2000, this ultra-right trend took an even further turn to the right, winning a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.
The main problem here is that many of the problems they attribute to the 'ultra-right', such as foreign interventions and anti-labor laws, occurred under and were sometimes even implemented by democrats as well. Democrats were more than willing to pass the Taft-Hartley Act, expanded the Vietnam war, initiated the support of the Afghan mujahadeen, bombed Iraq and maintained the sanctions against that country which led to the death of possibly one million people, bombed Serbia, and handed Bush his Iraq war on a platter while refusing to even consider impeachment for his lying to Congress. I am not trying to deny the existence of this 'ultra-right', but what has the right done that hasn't been either aided or at least unopposed by the 'left'?
The other problem with this general idea is that 'the ultra-right' is not a class. Marxism-Leninism is about class struggle, not focusing on a particular movement on the side of the ruling class at a particular time. For example, it was natural that Marxists worldwide would find themselves fighting Fascism, a movement that deserved the term 'ultra-right' 100%. However, few Marxists ever deluded themselves into thinking that Fascism, in itself, had become the main enemy of the working class in a permanent sense. To do so would be to believe the Fascists' own rhetoric about being a 'Third Way' between Communism and Capitalism. Fascism was a movement used by the ruling class of the 20s and 30s in order to thwart spreading revolution. Today's ultra-right is nothing but a tool of the ruling class; but they do not represent the ruling class as a whole. If anything they serve a very crucial purpose because their loud presence obscures the anti-working class nature of the so-called "mainstream" left. But the CPUSA takes the bait hook, line, and sinker.
It is often a tell-tale feature of revisionism to support the idea of socialism achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means. But the CPUSA is doing them one better- revisionism by proxy. At least when a Communist party runs candidates and wins seats in parliament or joins with a coalition, it at least appears possible to legislate socialism. The CPUSA would like us to believe that somehow electing Democrats is going to bring about all sorts of measures and changes which such candidates never mention. 'Progressives' have been progressively moving to the right for well over a decade, but rather than boost attention for people like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, the CPUSA prefers to back Democratic front-runners. This is beyond revisionism, this is insanity.
What this article really represents is a question that needs to be posed to the CPUSA. Perhaps it needs to be posed directly, by the membership. Namely, 'What the hell are you doing?' What possible benefit can there be from supporting Democrats, which have been proven time and time again to be every bit as planted in the pockets of big business as the Republicans? How can the CPUSA be changed so that it is a Communist Party again, and if it cannot change, is it time to start seeking another party? Until those questions have answers, one thing is certain: The CPUSA's 'Road to Socialism' is nothing but a dead end.
Firstly, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the CPUSA. As far as I know I have never met anyone who was affiliated with the CPUSA at the time of our meeting. I embraced Marxism-Leninism when I had already left the US, so we don't really have a history. Yet early on I read many critiques of their ideology, if you can even call it that, and even the most scathing seem far too generous. Using terms like "tailing the Democrats" is just far too nice; it would be just as accurate to say "kissing the Democratic Party's collective ass more passionately than a sizable portion of America's liberals, most of whom grew fed up with the Democrats in 2006 if not 2004."
What follows is not another analysis of the CPUSA's history of revisionism and betrayal of Marxism. Subjects like that have been dealt with plenty of times. Enver Hoxha dealt with the issue of 'Browderism' and the CPUSA in 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism. My aim in writing here is to simply ask, 'What does it take for these people to realize that they are revisionists, of the most impotent sort, possibly in the entire world?' How can they put out the line they do, and still call themselves a 'Communist' party? It's not as if there aren't plenty of revisionist parties in the world today, but most of these parties exist in countries with proportional representation, and thus they actually run candidates in elections. As such, many of them hold seats in their respective nations' parliaments, and due to this they are, reformist though they might be, at least able to exercise some power in the interests of the working class. For an example, while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation(KPRF) and their program may be far from Marxist-Leninist, at least they have a program, they run candidates in hopes of implementing it, and the accomplishment of their goals would have real meaning for working people. More than this, it would raise the prominence of class struggle in 'mainstream' political discussion, as well as create an environment that raises class awareness in general, assuming there is a real Marxist-Leninist party present to take advantage of the situation.
The CPUSA, due to its extreme revisionism, deserves a little credit here and there. In terms of its history, perhaps a lot of credit. The US labor movement owes a great deal of gratitude to Communists and their fellow-travelers, and one has to understand the massive negative effect things such as the second Red Scare of the McCarthy era as well as the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other events, gutted the party and organized labor in general. While there were revisionists like Earl Browder, there were also great leaders such as William Z. Foster. Perhaps most admirable is the fact that CPUSA played a crucial role in the recruitment and organization of the Lincoln, Washington, and MacKenzie-Papineau battalions, which fought for the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. But today their revisionism seems so blatant that there are many 'liberals' that stand to the left of them, and its no longer anarchists this time.
The revisionism of the CPUSA is so extremely pronounced that one need not even read their program to see it; just visit their website at any given time and read some of their statements. Take for example, an article from the CPUSA's 'Labor Up Front' newsletter I found on their site just a couple days ago. Apparently Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), was giving a pep-talk at a Hillary Clinton rally, and said some negative things about Barack Obama. I can remember about a month ago when it seemed like they were supporting both Hillary and Obama unquestionably. Given the fact that Obama since pulled ahead in the primaries, it is now apparent why they were supporting both Clinton and Obama as opposed to someone far more progressive, such as Kucinich. Basically, they support whoever is likely to win the nomination, and support democrats unquestionably. Take a look at some excerpts from this article alone.
Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists' union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)
Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.
In the first place it’s ironic that a labor leader should ridicule good oratory. The history of the labor movement is replete with labor leaders who inspired and moved workers to action with their ability to put into words the hopes, aspirations and demands of those who dream of a better life and a better world for working people.
Eugene Debs spoke eloquently of an industrial union for rail workers. One of his most famous speeches called for an end to workers dying in WWI as cannon fodder for the narrow interests of the industrialists and capitalists. He brought millions into the labor movement and got millions of votes on the Socialist Party ticket with his inspiring speeches. 1
Granted there is one good reason to attack the guy in question; he supports Hillary Clinton. Clinton as a the nominee is a surefire loss for the Democratic Party in 2008. A direct repeat of 2004's Kerry vs. Bush. Of course if one was reading the CPUSA's rhetoric, both a Clinton or Obama victory would be a triumph. As such they don't really have room to criticize. The bizarre thing is that they actually believe that somehow an Obama victory will be good for the working class. Head on over to the ultra-left PLP and you'll get the real scoop on Obama, such as this article and here's another one. Have a look at the Maoist RCP's Revolution Newspaper and you'll find more ugly truth about Obama. As far as 'Communist' parties go, the CPUSA is the only one fooled by Obama. Hell, it's not just Communists that aren't buying Obama's nonsense, take a look at Black Agenda Report for example. And keep in mind we're only talking about Obama here; the CPUSA actually found Hillary to be a desirable candidate before Obama started pulling ahead. Whereas after 2004 serious 'progressives' became increasingly critical of the Democratic party, particularly after 2006's midterm elections, it's all good with the CPUSA. Any Democrat will do.
So how is this related to the CPUSA's line? Revisionism usually means a Communist Party weakening its own platform until it becomes a social democratic party at best. The CPUSA is far beyond revisionism; they're not just tailing liber- uh..I mean progressives, they're kissing the ass of the Democratic party itself. Mainstream democrats are the same people who used to call themselves liberals, and out of sheer cowardice started calling themselves "progressives". Their candidates are so weak that they rarely even refer to themselves as progressives. And why? All because a fat guy on the radio and a couple hundred of his clones were allowed to make "liberal" a dirty word, and the liberals didn't have the balls to fight back. And those are people in which the CPUSA wants the working class to put its trust. As bizarre as the situation is, it is not some kind of fluke or strategy, the roots of this ultra-revisionism can be found right in the party's own program.
See, the CPUSA doesn't wage a class struggle. In the bizarre, G-rated Marxism of the modern CPUSA, the struggle is against something called "the ultra-right." Take a look at an excerpt from their party program:
The working class and all who work for a living—the vast majority of the people—face a relentless, vicious, and amoral enemy: the capitalist class. Our country is oppressed by one of the most controlling, despicable, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever, concentrating enormous political, economic, and military power in the hands of a few transnational corporations. These corporations seek to steal, embezzle, extort, and scheme all wealth from the tens of millions of working people, from small businesses and family farmers, from men, women, and children, from seniors and youth, and from the employed, underemployed, and unemployed. They exploit people as workers on the job and the same people as consumers at the checkout counter. Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism, used to divide working people and achieve extra profits. They work hard to extend ultra-right control over the government and government policy.
The ultra-right is led by the most reactionary, militaristic, racist, anti-democratic sectors of the transnationals. They gain support for their ultra-right agenda from other political trends and social groups, most of which are misled as to their real interests, sometimes blinded by the propaganda of fear and scapegoating.
Note that in the first paragraph, the program points out that the working class and the capitalist class are enemies. Yet right after that it says that Americans have a certain type of capitalist class, 'the most controlling, despicable, entrenched' etc. Immediately we see the major problems with this kind of reasoning. For Communists, a capitalist class is a capitalist class; there may be different shades under various conditions, but this is mostly inconsequential. Based on this it follows that the CPUSA's statement here is incorrect, the American ruling class does not fit that description, at least at this time. The control of the ruling class of Russia, for example, is far more controlling and entrenched than that of the US. But the illusion of a special 'evil' ruling class in modern times is designed to set up the straw-man enemy known as "the ultra-right". What exactly is the 'ultra-right'? Let's find out:
The first tendency represents the most reactionary section of the transnationals. It took over the Republican Party and in 1980 elected Ronald Reagan and then in 1988 George H. W. Bush as President. In the 1970s and dramatically escalating following the election of Reagan, the U.S. government increased the U.S. military build-up. Across the “mainstream” political spectrum, among most Republican and Democratic elected officials, support for capitalist globalization led to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the WTO, and other international trade agreements and organizations, and to increased outsourcing of union manufacturing jobs. It attacked the very existence of unions and bargaining rights, imposed tax cuts for the rich, cut social programs, demonized foreign opponents of the U.S., covertly funded the right-wing-initiated civil war in Nicaragua, and gave weapons to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq. They picked small countries to invade, including Panama and Grenada, testing new military equipment and strategy, and breaking down resistance at home and abroad to U.S. military invasion as a policy option.
While the ultra-right suffered some setbacks during the Clinton years, it did not receive a major lasting rebuff. The election of Clinton led the ultra-right to step up attacks on Democrats, liberals, and all social programs, and to intensify their efforts in a vast right-wing conspiracy. With the election to the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2000, this ultra-right trend took an even further turn to the right, winning a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.
The main problem here is that many of the problems they attribute to the 'ultra-right', such as foreign interventions and anti-labor laws, occurred under and were sometimes even implemented by democrats as well. Democrats were more than willing to pass the Taft-Hartley Act, expanded the Vietnam war, initiated the support of the Afghan mujahadeen, bombed Iraq and maintained the sanctions against that country which led to the death of possibly one million people, bombed Serbia, and handed Bush his Iraq war on a platter while refusing to even consider impeachment for his lying to Congress. I am not trying to deny the existence of this 'ultra-right', but what has the right done that hasn't been either aided or at least unopposed by the 'left'?
The other problem with this general idea is that 'the ultra-right' is not a class. Marxism-Leninism is about class struggle, not focusing on a particular movement on the side of the ruling class at a particular time. For example, it was natural that Marxists worldwide would find themselves fighting Fascism, a movement that deserved the term 'ultra-right' 100%. However, few Marxists ever deluded themselves into thinking that Fascism, in itself, had become the main enemy of the working class in a permanent sense. To do so would be to believe the Fascists' own rhetoric about being a 'Third Way' between Communism and Capitalism. Fascism was a movement used by the ruling class of the 20s and 30s in order to thwart spreading revolution. Today's ultra-right is nothing but a tool of the ruling class; but they do not represent the ruling class as a whole. If anything they serve a very crucial purpose because their loud presence obscures the anti-working class nature of the so-called "mainstream" left. But the CPUSA takes the bait hook, line, and sinker.
It is often a tell-tale feature of revisionism to support the idea of socialism achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means. But the CPUSA is doing them one better- revisionism by proxy. At least when a Communist party runs candidates and wins seats in parliament or joins with a coalition, it at least appears possible to legislate socialism. The CPUSA would like us to believe that somehow electing Democrats is going to bring about all sorts of measures and changes which such candidates never mention. 'Progressives' have been progressively moving to the right for well over a decade, but rather than boost attention for people like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, the CPUSA prefers to back Democratic front-runners. This is beyond revisionism, this is insanity.
What this article really represents is a question that needs to be posed to the CPUSA. Perhaps it needs to be posed directly, by the membership. Namely, 'What the hell are you doing?' What possible benefit can there be from supporting Democrats, which have been proven time and time again to be every bit as planted in the pockets of big business as the Republicans? How can the CPUSA be changed so that it is a Communist Party again, and if it cannot change, is it time to start seeking another party? Until those questions have answers, one thing is certain: The CPUSA's 'Road to Socialism' is nothing but a dead end.