USA Political Parties

This is the exact problem with rigid Trotskyism, Stalinism, and USSR-fetishism: it leaves the listener feeling exactly as if his would-be educator has just stepped out of 1937. Socialism is not a nostalgic doctrine, nor is it an antique roadster that has to be handled with extreme care under only the exact same conditions it was "born" in.

Red_Son wrote:

Seriously, the "CPUSA isn't M-L, I'M M-L!!" garbage never had substance and is worn out.

Projecting much?

Red_Son wrote:

Furthermore it smacks of arrogance to turn up your nose and basically accuse an active worker's party of abandoning our theoretical methodology simply because you don't agree with the conclusions reached

If the conclusions reached affect your methodology, I don't see what's wrong with it. In fact it's not arrogant at all (you just don't like it), it's quite accurate. It was never part of communist, let alone marxist-leninist, methodology to direct the revolutionary workers' movement to supporting the marginally more left wing bourgeois against their more right wing compadres. It doesn't even make sense, as capitalism's shift to the left or right is based on its own needs, something communists have little influence on minus its role as a revolutionary threat (something the CPUSA doesn't practice).

If I must be 'arrogant' to not believe in the CPUSA's non-marxist, liberal socialist rubbish, then so be it.

Red_Son wrote:

It also flies in the face of good faith between comrades that we at least accept each others word that we are, in fact, communists.

You can only stretch the criteria for 'communist' so far, I accept trotskyists, left communists, de leonites, maoists, and even anarchists as communists and comrades. They are all revolutionary and won't drop that line no matter how non-mainstream and non-liberal it is, unlike the CPUSA, who is more then willing to if it means to be accepted more by non-communists.

Red_Son wrote:

But, if you feel like factionalism will benefit the working people of the US, go right on ahead.

I feel like wasteful and clearly misguided parties like the CPUSA ought to hand the grand title 'Communist Party of the USA' to a party like the PSL and be merged under the leadership of actual communists and revolutionaries, and you should feel the same way.

What is communist or marxist in PSL ? You prefer leftists than rightists, ok... this is very dialectical !

Quote:

It was never part of communist, let alone marxist-leninist, methodology to direct the revolutionary workers' movement to supporting the marginally more left wing bourgeois against their more right wing compadres.

We don't support any of them. We support voting for certain members of the ruling class as a means of curbing the power of the most reactionary sector of that same class. The bourgeoisie isn't like the proletariat. Their interests are not uniform, nor are the parties that represent their various sectors and strata. You also seem to be of the impression that our electoral activity is a long-term policy founded on principle, rather than a short-term decision made out of necessity. There is not, at this time, much of a revolutionary worker's movement to direct, which means we have to build one through working with other mass and local organizations which may, at times, mean working with and for campaigns for Democratic candidates. This is a policy that is working. The party is growing quickly, and socialism is being widely discussed by many working people as an alternative to capitalism.

Or is there a party to which you would point that has successfully built independent socialist politics through adherence to your dogmatic abstentionist line?

Quote:

They are all revolutionary and won't drop that line no matter how non-mainstream and non-liberal it is, unlike the CPUSA, who is more then willing to if it means to be accepted more by non-communists.

So, in other words, they're just not good enough to be called communist. I think this proves my point about the arrogance often present in the left-criticism of the CPUSA. More people trying to play judge and jury for what is and what is not communist.

We work hard and diligently to build revolutionary politics among the working masses of America. The only people on the pay role work for little over minimum wage and clock in obscene hours to keep things going at the top. We are currently in a period of transition and transformation.

Claiming that there is any progressive victory in electing bourgeoisie politicians, or that it is somehow 'building revolutionary politics' among the masses, is completely absurd. Those left liberals will happily support fascists to kill us when we become more than a novelty or minority to be 'protected'. This has nothing to do with factionalism but that electing anyone who is not pro-proletarian hegemony is non-revolutionary.

And besides Republicans and Democrats are identical reactionary parties who wear different colors and present a different platform for people to purchase. If this were a communist country the West would call this a sham, a false opposition. Which it clearly is. Electing Democrats, no matter how much of a left liberal they may be, is a validation of bourgeoisie two party politics. This plan is an even less effective version of entryism.

The revolutionary wing of the CPUSA has been saying this all along and the party leadership clearly has no intention of listening.

It's therefore now a question of whether the revolutionary wing of the CPUSA can purge the bourgeois-tailing elements of the leadership, or whether the party is doomed to implosion and factionalization. CPUSA has the name, and not much else. I've come to the conclusion over the past few months that it is a hollow shell of its former self, bent on securing crumbs for the working class, where it used to (in the days of Browder, Foster, and Hall) boldly demand the entire pie. The demise of the USSR should never have had such an adverse effect, or any effect whatsoever, on this last point.

The revolutionary wing of the party is too small to overcome Webb and his 'the left liberals will stop republican fascism' nonsense. When fascism comes here democrats and republicans will hold the banner up together.

I actually sent them an email a while back saying that they were a joke and didn't do anything. They replied by saying they were in fact doing stuff and said I should read the Daily Worker or whatever they're calling it now to see all they've been doing.

I've only ever dealt with them via email, but the PSL is certainly my favourite.

We're a non-sectarian leftist party, we accept everybody, except trotskyites.

As communism is very weak in the USA, I agree with this statement : "The struggle to defeat the ultra-right is a democratic struggle that advances the class struggle and that has the potential to shift the balance of forces in a direction more favorable for winning working class victories and for mounting offensive struggles." (CPUSA program) Then, the practical effects must be analyzed. Comrade Red Son, do you think this tactic has good results ?

PSL.

OP-Bagration wrote:

I never heard of them before, so I think they are not very useful. At least, te CPUSA will send youths at the WFDY's festival, so maybe I will talk to them.

The PSL is a young party that is only six years old and does not have the list of contacts that the CPUSA has; however, in the past six years they have managed to built solid contacts with FSLN, FMLN and the National Popular Resistance Front.

OP-Bagration wrote:

Because CPUSA is not a split of a trotskyist split.

Actually they are. In 1919 the moderate socialists expelled the pro-Bolshevik socialists within the Socialist Party. Those radicals formed another party the Communist Labor Party, the predecessor of the CPUSA. I'd argue that the CPUSA is in a similar situation as the moderate socialists of the Socialist Party in 1919. Impressions of the CPUSA convention is a good read from several CPUSA members who disagree with the current reformist leadership.

Red_Son wrote:

But, if you feel like factionalism will benefit the working people of the US, go right on ahead.

It is utopian to think that there will be one major resistance group, there have been few examples of this in history. Dissent divides, the goal of communists in non-revolutionary times is to prepare for a revolutionary crisis. Fighting the ultra right is hardly doing that. I believe, contrary to the CPUSA, that we aren't going to be able to count on the Democrats anymore (even the few progressives in there) because we are going to be entering an age of austerity. The few gains the working class made under social-democracy is going to be chipped away.

OP-Bagration wrote:

Then, the practical effects must be analyzed. Comrade Red Son, do you think this tactic has good results ?

Look at the past two years in the USA with the liberal democrats (and not right wing extremists) in control of the Presidency & Congress.

Quote:

If nominal criticism is the extent of your polemic, then I'm sorely disappointed

Ok. A few things.

SPUSA's Road to Socialism p.75 says:

The communist party must be:

1. a party of the working class....
2. a party of socialism,
3. based on Marxism-Leninism
4. engaged in proletarian internationalism, and
5. organized on the principle of democratic centralism.

here is where the confusion lies:

It is BASED on Marxism-Leninism. Not necessarily IS Marxism-Leninism.

http://cpusa.org/we-need-a-new-kind-of-peace-movement/

Quote:

The communists and the left must give strong leadership from grassroots and at the national level to build a movement that fights for a series of reforms that take aim at the systematic nature of wars, military industrial complex and US imperialism.

I think the point that most here are stating is that since the CPUSA has lost its revolutionary fervor, it is no longer M-L. A traditional Marxist-Leninist would not be seeking a series of reforms as a viable solution to the US war machine. The fact that the CPUSA is collaborating with the Bourgeois Democratic party in the US shows that what they do and what they act on is not seeded in Marxism-Leninism.

Lenin refers to reformists as Bourgeois. So how can a party say they are Leninists if they go against what Lenin believed? M-L is revolutionary. the CPUSA is not. They don't claim to be. They merely claim to be BASED on M-L.

Fighting for reform is a GREAT way to raise awareness that revolution is necessary. If the end result is a series of reforms to what we already have in place, how can that be considered M-L when M-L is seeded in Revolution and anti-reformism? It violates the Law of contradiction which is a key component to Dialectical materialism. If you profess to be M-L and you support reformism, there is contradiction apparent.

Lenin himself stated:

Quote:

...we demand a change of that which exists and reject subservience thereto and reconciliation to it.

(What is to be done ch. 1.3)

So if you are seeking reform, you are seeking reconciliation rather than revolution.

Lenin himself stated:

Quote:

Indeed if Social-Democracy, in essence, is merely a party of reform and must be bold enough to admit this openly, then not only has a socialist a right to join a bourgeois cabinet, it must always strive to do so.

(What is to be done ch. 1.1)

By lending effort and support to the bourgeois Democratic Party, it is openly seeking to do so and striving to do so.

Lenin himself stated about this sort of person who adheres to this:

Quote:

Why should he not personally take part in greeting the Tsar...?

(What is to be done ch. 1.1)

This is why some of us feel that the CPUSA is no longer M-L. I was a member of the CPUSA at one point in time as well. I had many dealings with the CPUSA. I liked the fact they were old, established and seemingly bigger. But as a M-L, I cannot endorse what they do because even if it is BASED on M-L, it really isn't M-L. M-L is revolutionary and will not settle for reform as an end solution.

Quote:

We don't support any of them.

Perhaps, but the CPUSA Seeks unity with the Democratic Party and endorsed Democratic party Candidates in the last number of elections. It may be true that you don't support them, but it is terribly confusing to be in unity with them. If you are unified with someone, are you also not supporting them? If you support the Heath care reforms of the democratic party are you not supporting the party in any way shape or form?

Supporting of Bourgeois reforms is bourgeois. So I guess I have to ask this question:

How can a true M-L support any bourgeois reform?


================================

OB:

Quote:

PSL isn't a marxist-leninist party, rather a kind of leftist sect. I never heard of them before, so I think they are not very useful

If you never heard of them before how do you know anything about them to offer an opinion? I suggest reading up on them before making statements about them. It is ignorant to do so.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer

Let me know when you do this and perhaps we can discuss fact rather than your uninformed opinion.

Which parties are more Maoist?

Of the parties you listed: The RCP and the FRSO (freedomroad.org) are both maoist oriented. RCP is more of a maoist party while FRSO is more of a general leftist party with strong maoist tendencies.

RCP is just to the "right" of these Monkey Smashes Heaven MTW type of sites. Avakian is definitely the foremost "cult of personality" proponent in American Communism. I like their earnestness, and their earthiness, and I like their energy. I definitely like that they have very committed young people in top "spokesperson" positions rather than middle eaged (or elderly) men. But the "cult of Bob" irritates me intensely.

Quote:

Actually they are.

Being expelled is not splitting. The English CP was also expelled...

Quote:

Look at the past two years in the USA with the liberal democrats (and not right wing extremists) in control of the Presidency & Congress

It is a progress compared to Bush. Trying to suppress Bush's taxcuts is democratic.

Quote:

They don't claim to be. They merely claim to be BASED on M-L.

I don't claim to be, I just try to base.

Quote:

The fact that the CPUSA is collaborating with the Bourgeois Democratic party in the US shows that what they do and what they act on is not seeded in Marxism-Leninism.

Our French CP supported the democrat "bourgeoisie" during the Popular Front, and the Party grew bigger and bigger. Oncle Joseph ordered to do so. The Party was marxist-leninist.

Quote:

How can a true M-L support any bourgeois reform?

How can he not support a democratic reform, if the reform is a progress for the people, if supporting the reform improves the "socialist consciousness of the working masses" (What is to be done)? What would the workers say about them: "they speak about revolution, but they do nothing; they care about revolution, but not about the people".

"The social revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles over all sorts of problems of economic and democratic reform, which are consummated only by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It is for the sake of this final aim that we must formulate every one of our democratic demands in a consistently revolutionary way. It is quite conceivable that the workers of some particular country will overthrow the bourgeoisie before even a single fundamental democratic reform has been fully achieved. It is, however, quite inconceivable that the proletariat, as a historical class, will be able to defeat the bourgeoisie, unless it is prepared for that by being educated in the spirit of the most consistent and resolutely revolutionary democracy." (Lenin, The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

CPUSA : "The struggles for the immediate demands and reforms needed by working people today are essential steps toward our ultimate goals of the revolutionary transformation of society and the economy, toward socialism and then communism. The constant battles over issues large and small are where workers learn the lesson that more fundamental changes are necessary and that people need socialism to have a truly humane society."

Quote:

Perhaps, but the CPUSA Seeks unity with the Democratic Party and endorsed Democratic party Candidates in the last number of elections.

Is it shocking? Lenin said the British communists should join the Labour, if they keep their freedom of critics. If the CPUSA stoped criticizing the democrats, this would be indeed a treason.

Quote:

If you never heard of them before how do you know anything about them to offer an opinion?

I said I never heard of them before. But maybe my english is too bad...

OB, thank you for answering the questions I asked Red_Son, i'd appreciate his answers, however.

Quote:

I said I never heard of them before

Yes, so how can you offer an opinion about them? did you even look up their website? you made a sweeping statement that they are not even M-L but a leftist sect when this is clearly not true.

in case you need that url again,

http://www.pslweb.org/

Quote:

Yes, so how can you offer an opinion about them? did you even look up their website? you made a sweeping statement that they are not even M-L but a leftist sect when this is clearly not true.

in case you need that url again,

http://www.pslweb.org/

Of course I did. I prefered CPUSA website and program, then I voted for CPUSA. For instance, I disagree with PSL when they write "We are fighting for socialism". I'm not a Chavez, I'm a communist. I fight only for communism. I don't see any reference to marxism-leninism on PSL's website. The CPUSA may be not perfect, but it is still the party of the communists. The PSL is not very different from the French Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (trotskyist) which speaks about "socialism of the XXIth century".

OP-Bagration wrote:

It is a progress compared to Bush. Trying to suppress Bush's taxcuts is democratic.

I don't really see the difference. IF Obama could reverse Bush's right wing agenda that would mean that there is hope for reform within the USA's political system.

OP-Bagration wrote:

If the CPUSA stoped criticizing the democrats, this would be indeed a treason.

To have the voice of the American working class be lowered to loyal opposition to the Democratic Party is rather sad.

OP-Bagration wrote:

I don't see any reference to marxism-leninism on PSL's website.

The 2010 Progam of the PSL: Socialism and Liberation in the United States: What we are fighting for, one of their chapters is The validity of Marxism and Leninism.

OP-Bagration wrote:

The PSL is not very different from the French Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (trotskyist) which speaks about "socialism of the XXIth century".

"Socialism of the 21st century" and its supporters are usually full of shit. You have either capitalism or revolution of the working class. There is no third way.