Not surprising at all. Typical CPUSA garbage.
Results 1 to 20 of 60
Communist Party USA toils in Manhattan obscurity
-!-!-
By Kerry Burke
-!-!-
2002-02-21
-!-!-
Hardly a stereotypical Bolshevik, Sam Webb, the Communist Party USA chairman, says he wants to bring the party into the American mainstream. But first, he'll have to shake the legacy of Gus Hall.
-!-!-
Most passers-by barely notice the Unity Book Center. The titles in the window, however -- "Capitalism in Crisis," "Another World Is Possible" and "Russian Peasants' Soviet Power" -- aren't on any best-seller list. The storefront, inside a former family court building in Manhattan, is the public face of the Communist Party USA. Upstairs is the party's national headquarters.
Sitting in the cafeteria hidden behind the bookstore, Sam Webb, national party chairman, says he is not bothered by the party's obscurity.
"A disinformation campaign by the ruling class tied America's communist party to the now dissolved Soviet Union," said Webb confidently. "But we've adapted and will continue to change with the times."
Webb, 56, presides over a party whose most newsworthy figure, Gus Hall, died two years ago. The married father of two grown daughters, Webb is easygoing, bespectacled and a dedicated reader of The New York Times. Hardly a stereotypical Bolshevik, he says he wants to bring the party into the American mainstream. But first, he'll have to shake the legacy of Gus Hall.
"Hall's party came out of the struggles of the Great Depression, Franco and Spain, Hitler and World War II, " said Webb wistfully. "But that generation was getting old. We needed to make a transition -- not only at the top, but every level. We're still in the middle of it."
Over the four decades he led America's communists, Gus Hall was the party. The son of an impoverished Minnesota miner, Hall outlasted steel mill insurrections, World War II, McCarthy era imprisonment, Cold War isolation and even the dissolution of his beloved Soviet Union. Admitting to absolutely none of socialism's shortcomings, Hall remained a stalwart Stalinist right into the post-Communist world.
Even as the left's agenda became increasingly defined by feminism, environmentalism and gay activism, Hall demanded an international factory-worker-led revolution. He waxed nostalgically for the old Soviet bloc and called famine-stricken North Korea an "economic miracle." In 1994, the New York party splintered, with much of the membership bolting after Hall refused to step down.
It's Webb's job to pick up the pieces. He has to offer a viable political party to a public that barely knows it exists and without disowning communism's core principles.
Webb preaches "Bill of Rights Socialism," a phrase Hall coined but that Webb is trying to make currency. "Socialism in this country has to reflect American history, habits and traditions," he said on a recent morning at 9 a.m., an hour before the party's student employees and senior citizen volunteers arrived for work. "The Bill of Rights was attached to the Constitution because people wanted certain rights protected that weren't covered by the constitution as written over 200 years ago.
"We think those protections should continue in a socialist society, although we think they should be extended to include decent jobs, affordable housing and health care," he explained.
Since Webb's election, the party has also gone high-tech. Well, sort of. "Workers of the World, Log In!" invites the home page -- but the site's only features are excerpts from party publications and past convention speeches. One thing you can do, however, is join online. Workers at party headquarter could not provide accurate numbers for either site "hits" or new e-members.
Webb says there are over 15,000 communists nationwide -- down from a peak of 66,000 in 1939 -- although no independent figures exist. The majority, he said, live in New York City. The party's roughly 15 full-time employees, including its chairman, make the same $350 weekly salary, a paltry sum in a city where studio rents can start at $1,700 monthly. Webb lives on Manhattan's gentrified Upper West Side where he has a cut-rate sublet from a comrade.
Webb gets vague when asked how socialism will come to pass.
"Eventually the American people are going to -- based on their own experience, not imposed by us or anyone else -- realize that socialist society will be a better alternative than capitalism," he said in his gruff but gentle native Maine accent.
But Webb's media strategy will need some work. Victor Navasky, publisher of The Nation, a prominent weekly left-wing journal, said he had never heard of chairman Webb.
"My sense is that a party still exists," said Navasky. "And that they're putting on a brave front."
-!-!-
Communist Party USA Chair Sam Webb
-!-!-
Evelyn Fitzgerald
Not surprising at all. Typical CPUSA garbage.
To top this crap off, the CPUSA expelled some of its members in Minneapolis for calling for the nationalization of a Ford plant.
Raise your theoretical level here! * Wellred USA - Leftist buttons, pins, shirts, stickers, T-shirts, books, pamphlets Wellred Online Bookshop
Insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people.
-V.I. Lenin
Bureaucracy and social harmony are inversely proportional to each other.
-Leon Trotsky
They don't advocate communism. They advocate "socialism to replace capitalism as a better system."
What a bunch of knobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yXXjJuyPE
Revisionist! Revisionist!
"I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
Nothing resembles the bourgeois as much as representatives of the proletariat.
Club Educational Study Guide: on Reflections on Socialism by Sam Webb
Archive Education Educational Study and Discussion Guides
Author: CPUSA Education Commission
First published 08/02/2005 15:37 by {article_topic_desc}
Importance of Subject
Comrade Sam Webb has written a discussion paper, Reflections on Socialism. It deals with the key considerations in going from where we are to winning socialism and the key questions of the early period of its construction in the U.S. This paper opens a major discussion throughout the Party and with our friends. It is important to update our thinking on this subject both in terms of substance and methodology as they apply to our country. Doing so will help us become much more effective in building the Party and attracting people to socialism. It will also link our daily activity in the struggle for the needs of our class and people to defeat the ultra-right Bush Administration and their cohorts, with the road ahead to socialism. It is, therefore, most important for our entire membership and all our clubs to participate in the discussion.
Method of Conducting Club Educationals
We, therefore, urge every club to have at least two major club discussions on the paper. This guide is aimed at helping you accomplish that in the most productive way. It is most important that everyone receive Comrade Webb's paper and, if at all possible, read it completely through before the first of the two proposed club discussions. Each discussion should be planned for approximately an hour. Someone should be assigned to lead each discussion, and someone else to take notes. A copy of the notes should be sent in to the National Education Commission c/o the National Office ([email protected] or 235 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10011).
There are seven discussion questions below: 4 for the first session and 3 for the second. Approximately 15 minutes should be allotted for each of the 4 questions in the first discussion and 20 minutes for each of the three questions in the second discussion.
There are several methods that could be used to conduct the educationals. Pick that which suits your club circumstances best.
Method 1. Each discussion question (or a substitute you devise) is assigned to a different person to open up for 5-7 minutes and then the discussion leader chairs additional comments from the club. Then the discussion leader sums up where there is agreement, disagreement, and where there is the desire to have further discussion at some future time. The same process is repeated with each discussion question.
Method 2. The discussion leader opens up on each question for 5 minutes and then the same process is followed as in Method 1.
Method 3. No one is asked to prepare an opening on any given discussion question. Rather the discussion leader poses the question to the club members and chairs and guides the discussion on each successive question, etc. Of course, it is likely the discussion will be richer if the discussion leader or participants are asked to help by preparing a little opening on each question.
Discussion Questions
Session 1:
1. We fight for the daily needs of working people both as a matter of social justice and as necessary to be able to advance the struggle for socialism. We also believe it is possible to win some victories in these struggles. Comrade Webb gives reasons for the necessity of socialism in addition to those we have traditionally used. Why is socialism indispensable and necessary?
2. Comrade Webb lists important values that need to guide our struggles for progress and socialism. Why do we need values in the struggle? And where do the values of the Communist Party come from? Why does he list democracy as one of our most important values?
3. Comrade Webb argues that the working class must and will lead the struggle for major social progress and socialism. But he also argues this must be done in close alliance with other “core social forces”—namely the racially and nationally oppressed, women and youth. Then he argues the alliance that can and needs to be built to win socialism will be the broadest of all and can embrace all working people. Why can't some other class or social force or combination of them play the leading role for major social progress and socialism? Considering that each stage of the struggle takes on more advanced demands, why does Comrade Webb say the progressive front of struggle for socialism will be the broadest?
4. Comrade Webb argues the advance from where we are to socialism requires going from one strategic stage of struggle to another. In the present stage we seek to defeat the ultra-right, most reactionary sector of the transnationals. Progress in this stage of struggle will open the next stage of struggle where our main aim will be to radically curb the power of the transnational monopolies as a whole. Progress in this stage of struggle will open the door to the stage of struggle where our aim will be to achieve working people's power headed by the working class to construct socialism. What is the significance of our understanding of these different phases or stages of struggle? Why should we not just skip the intermediary phases and fight for a change in class power and the construction of socialism?
Session 2:
5. Marxism has always pointed to the necessity to win a qualitative change in class power from that of big capital to that of the working class in alliance with its allies in order to be able to build a socialist society. Comrade Webb suggests that change in power will likely be more than a single event at a single moment. Rather it is likely to be more complex and could be extended in time. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all preferred such a transition be achieved without civil war or significant violence—a peaceful transition. However, they considered the conditions for it could only be achieved rarely. Comrade Webb agrees that if it were only up to big capital such a peaceful transition would be highly unlikely. Under what conditions does Comrade Webb consider avoidance of violence a real possibility?
6. For many years Marxist textbooks defined socialism as "working class power, social ownership of the means of production, and planned economy." Why does Comrade Webb favor qualification of such a definition? The record of the socialist countries with respect to democracy is mixed. There are good experiences of going beyond the limits of what was won under bourgeois democracy, and there are experiences that deviated from the struggle to build truly democratic societies and hence are incompatible with socialist values. What approaches to the political structure and functioning of our country, including the role of the Communist Party, does Comrade Webb suggest so that there will be a flowering of democracy for working people and a full implementation of equality for the racially and nationally oppressed and women.
7. One of the conditions for socialist society to fulfill its high values is the rapid progress of its economy. The model of the socialist economy 20 years ago began suffering from a number of problems in comparison with the developed capitalist countries it had been overtaking. These included: an inability to introduce the results of science, research and development rapidly into production; wastage of input factors; production of consumer goods no one would buy; falling behind most advanced capitalist countries in productivity and technology. Among the approaches Comrade Webb suggests to overcome or prevent such problems are: combining the use of market mechanisms with central planning and regulation: using a variety of forms of social ownership of production and distribution, not only nationalization; ending all forms of unearned income, while paying for work performed according to its quantity and quality, until the communist stage is reached. Will these suggestions help avoid such problems? What else should be considered?
Click here to read or print Sam Webb's Reflections on Socialism
Don't forget to send in notes of your club's discussion and opinions to the National Education Commission: ([email protected] or 235 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10011).
I really like Reflections on Socialism by Comrade Webb. And it's true, CPUSA doesn't talk about communism much. But they still do talk about it, they realize the steps necessary for communism in America, and the focus has to be on socialism right now. The CPUSA has taken a slightly-pragmatic stance, but I think they're a valuable contribution to the communist movement. And about the nationalization thing, yeah, it's bad that the comrades were expelled, but what were the details? You'd have to be crazy to think a company nationalized by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT would be any better for the workers than a privately-owned one. The call seems to be out of line with the Party's national strategy, so it doesn't seem entirely ridiculous.
I don't love everything about the CPUSA either. But at least they are connected to the International Communist Movement including Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and the Left party in Germany. And the greatest weakness of communism in America has been its depiction as something "foreign", so I think an appeal to patriotism is neccesary. The CPUSA was depicted as a bunch of old dinosaurs as early as the 1960s, yet the dinosaur is still lumbering on while all the youth groups of the 60s have died out.
That is hardly an accurate description of the state of the left in the US. There are many groups that are active, including some that came out of the 60s, such as the RCP and the two FRSOs. There are also other groups like the PLP with roots in a split from the CP around the time Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin was publicized, as well as the WWP and PSL that grew out of Sam Marcy's brand of Trotskyism.
The CPUSA (if one can even consider them to be "of the left") doesn't just take a pragmatic stance. They are thoroughly revisionist and reactionary. They oppose the immediate withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq. The antiwar coalition that they lead (UfPJ) consistently plays a right-wing role in the antiwar movement. They create illusions in the Democratic Party among the people and illusions of a peaceful transition to socialism. Furthermore, as illustrated by the documents posted above, they oppose socialist planning in favor of market socialism. They also uphold state-capitalist China and consider Salvador Allende's Chile as an example to be emulated.
"I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
Do you have a source of the CP supporting the occupation of Iraq? They recently had an article claiming that the occupation was the biggest problem facing the Iraqi people. And they support Allende, because the Party tries to show that not all communists are crazy like Pol Pot. Chile is one example where socialism is clearly on the moral high ground against capitalism. Also, there's been some support for market socialism, but they certainly haven't abandoned the idea of central planning. The Party feels that the transition to socialism in the most capitalist country on the planet must employ the socialist market and central planning. And I don't care how much you hate the CPUSA; they're on the left. You can't deny that. A peaceful transition to socialism USA is what the Party wants, but if you ever read their website, you would know that they realize there will be struggle involved. They say that the violence starts with the capitalists, and if they resist the revolution, we will fight them.
Aren't we beating a dead horse here? The CPUSA's days have passed it. It has proven itself irrelevant, impotent, and sad
Let's move on, leave the curators to play in their archival struggle. They have no viable plan, no realistic chance at success, and are sadly confined to the dustbin of history. Why does the serious left continue to bother with this joke of an organization?
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
The Communist Parties of Yugoslavia, Japan, Germany, Vietnam and China all recognize the CPUSA as the vanguard party in the USA.
In pure numbers its by far the largest, and internally it has maintained strict Leninist discipline that has allowed it to survive into 2007.
I wont dispute attacks on its effectiveness, but FRSO, PLP and RCP aren't exactly leading a revolution either and are far smaller and less active. With the exception of FRSO all other Marxist parties adapt a hopeless nihilist notion that all existing socialist nations of the 21st century are revisionist. And as far as being effective only CPUSA members have ever held elective office or controlled unions. The NYC Transit Union was led by a CP member.
More importantly, Cuba maintains ties with the CPUSA. The CPUSA is a legitimate, revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist party. Why is the CPUSA the scapegoat? The Socialist Party and a handful of "social democratic" or Trotskyist groups are probablly way more reactionary. The CPUSA has every right to construct its own model for socialism in America.
The CPUSA is a reformist organization which until recently has run electoral candidates rather than back revolutionary change.
Now, they even endorse Dumocratic candidates.
Because they are reformist, revisionist, inefficient, out-of-touch, and frought with nepotism. They are the textbook example of what is wrong with leftist politics in America.
No group has done as much damage to revolutionary politics in America than the CPUSA. When we have the revolution, if the CPUSA is still around, they will probably try to undermine the workers state, or inject themselves into it.
What's even 'socialist' about the CPUSA?
They practice sham-Marxism-Leninism.
formerly Brick
formerly COMRADE CRUM
"To defend Stalin requires more courage than making the Revolution." -Hafizullah Amin
Join the Midwest Marxist-Leninist group.
They endorse democratic candidates for practical reasons. My friend recently went to see a YCL representative at her university. Basically, the CPUSA recognizes that the democrats are not a people's party, but they can be influenced by the people, and they are the only major party that can be influenced by the people. The only feasible strategy, as far as I'm cocerning, is ending the war at all costs and getting universal heatlh care, while building a vanguard party and socialist movement. The Party calls for democratic control of the means of production, a workers' state, and a centrally planned economy; they're socialist.
As do big business, reformist business unions, and so-called liberals.
Oh, contraire...
In 2006 the Dumocratic Party told America it would pull us out of the Iraq boondoggle. We're still waiting.
They've taken NO action on practically ANYTHING since that election, and now they're pushing a right-winger like Hillary Clinton for 2008.
The Dumocrats listen to the people and IGNORE them, whereas the Repubicans don't listen at all. Doesn't seem like much of an alternative to me.
About as socialist as the 20th Party Congress in the USSR.
formerly Brick
formerly COMRADE CRUM
"To defend Stalin requires more courage than making the Revolution." -Hafizullah Amin
Join the Midwest Marxist-Leninist group.
Wrong, members of lots of different parties have done both.
Communists fight for the political independence of the working class. We don't support one capitalist party over another because it's "easier to influence," whatever that even means.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
Really? What numbers are these? You mean the amount of people that go and sign up on their site, yet don't participate actively? I used to work with a local YCL circle, and we were the most active YCL circle in the country. "National conventions" had about 50 people, most of whom were relatively inactive, and many of whom sounded more like liberal democrats than revolutionary communists.
Plus don't even let me get into the hierarchical and bureaucratic, anti-working-class nature of the organization. Members shouldn't be harassed because they disagree with some low level bureaucrat over a minor financial discrepancy. They're a bunch of liberal "left" democrats whose only goal is to maintain their position of financial security through harassing active and committed members.
The CP is a joke; they're not communist, they don't focus on the class struggle, and they can go to hell.
No it hasn't. It's completely done away with democratic centralism; any cursory analysis of the workings of the organization shows this. They're a bunch of bureaucrats that dictate to the "lower-downs". Of course, the membership base doesn't really help its cause, which is generally impotent and not Marxist in any sense.
Yeah, but they're not actually supporting them, they're just against the "neoconservative assault on freedom". :wacko:
There is no practical reason to endorse the bourgeoisie.
And there your Marxist analysis goes out the window; the bourgeoisie can't be "influenced" by the people to any significant extent, and saying so is liberal trash.
They call for it but they don't act towards it; that's a huge difference.
Which Communist Party is bigger?
