Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sam Webb on Fox New's Glen Beck Show

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Apr 2009, 23:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Dec 2009, 06:01
Well, I think it's true of any communist party in the United States that they don't have a presence in every state, or even every major city. RevCom itself seems to be largely restricted to California and New England as well. What I think we need is a more immediate plan of action at specific points where the most fertile grounds for socialism exist (Chicago and Seattle come to mind).

No problem, always happy to help.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 01 Dec 2009, 06:09
well the CPUSA's most active in the Twin Cities area (where Gus Hall lived) and they seem to locate themselves strictly in the urban areas (NY, San Francisco, Boston, DC). However, people are more than happy to hold stations for the party, if they would just act. There's a movement to begin a college campus YCL up in Boulder, Colorado, but the CPUSA has had no motion to assist.

I thought that the interview there was much more fullfilling, but its also because CNN respects the left more than Fox News ever has. Also Sam Webb wasn't present, and I seem to see her more often than I see him.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Apr 2009, 23:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Dec 2009, 06:21
I'm not really saying that these other areas should be overlooked, but I wonder if it would be a good idea to pick one or two areas to put our principle focus on.

It's possible that we're looking at growing pains, the passing of the torch from the old generation to the newer one that came of age in the post-soviet era. What sucks is that those of us outside the major areas of activity are often left in the dark. Again, communication is one our principle issues if not the principle issue.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 01 Dec 2009, 06:34
lucky for our generation is that the vast majority of teens are open to or even supportive of socialism. One reason for this is the internet. Another is the fact that we were raised post Soviet Union, so we don't have red scare as much.

what the CPUSA must now do is figure out a way to channel this new support and grow, which they are not doing. I am a Marxist-Leninist, but I believe that the revolution should be widespread, so focusing in one country is ineffective to me. Sure some cities will have more impact than others, but the CPUSA must always work to spread where people have no knowledge of it.

Kids will not venture outside of what they are taught, unless they are taught to question it. American history is full of lies about socialism and communism. It's the CPUSA's job to debunk these lies and encourage a further development of sympathy and empathy for communism
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 01 Dec 2009, 16:52
proletarian wrote:
The CPUSA has declined horribly since his appointment after Gus Hall's death.

Frankly I feel it died during McCarthy's era.

proletarian wrote:
I am a member of the YCL and will register with the party next year.

I was considering that at one point but then I decided that they aren't that good of an organization.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 01 Dec 2009, 23:04
Quote:
I was considering that at one point but then I decided that they aren't that good of an organization.


Well if we gave up on something strictly because it was horribly organized, then Marx would never have attended the first international. I think I will join it to attempt to better organize the CPUSA. If the national platform is bettered, then the CPUSA can once again be a force in American politics.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 830
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 27 Dec 2009, 03:33
Reflections on some political and ideological questions today

* Print
* Email to a Friend

http://www.peoplesworld.org/what-if/
by: Sam Webb
December 21 2009

tags: commentary, Obama, strategy, tactics

The president doesn't simply register and reflect the balance of power; he influences it as well; no other person has as much power as the president. To identify him as a centrist Democrat akin to Clinton or Carter or Kennedy conceals more than it reveals; it's too neat. It doesn't help us understand him as a political actor and his place in the broader struggle for progressive change. And it can quickly lead to narrow tactics and a wrong-headed strategic policy.

Some say, for example, that the strategic role of the left is to criticize the president, to push him from left. But is that a good point of departure strategically? Doesn't it elevate a tactical question to a strategic one?

Criticizing the president (especially in the internet age) takes little imagination or effort, far less than activating the various forces that elected him last year. To do the latter takes a strategic sense, flexible tactics, creative thinking, and hard work. The president's report card, it could easily be argued, is better than the coalition that elected him. He doesn't get an A, but neither do we.

There are no prohibitions against criticism of the president, but it should be done in a unifying and constructive way. The success or failure of the Obama presidency will resonate for years. A deep imprint on class and racial relations will be part of his legacy. It is hard to imagine how a successful struggle for reforms can happen without the president or how anyone other than the extreme right and sections of the ruling class would benefit if his presidency fails.
Attitude towards reform

A very different political and ideological issue that has a bearing on practical politics is the assertion that capitalism has no solutions to the present crisis and can't be reformed.

If this means that the endemic crises of capitalism (for example, cyclical and structural unemployment, regular crises, overproduction, over accumulation, etc.) will persist as long as the profit motive is the singular determinant of economic activity, we would agree.

But if this means that anything short of a system wide change is of little importance, or that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can't be modified, we would disagree.

We should avoid counterposing the bankruptcy of capitalism against the struggle for reforms under capitalism. Such juxtaposition is unnecessary and counterproductive. If we don't struggle for the latter (reforms), what we say about the former (systemic nature of problems) will carry little weight nor will we get to where we want to go - socialism.

Capitalism is more elastic than some believe. It changes on its own (its internal laws motion - what Marx studied in "Capital") and is modified by the class struggle. Look at its historical development if you don't believe so.
Role of the working class

Still another ideological question is the role of the working class in general and the labor movement in particular. The right wing and mass media (not just Fox) either heap abuse on the labor movement or make it invisible. They are well aware of the new developments in organized labor, and recoil at the prospect of a revitalizing labor movement. None of this is a surprise.

What is surprising is that many progressive and left people either have a blind spot when it comes to the labor movement, or see it as just another participant, or refuse to see - even dismiss out of hand - the new developments within it.

Leading up to the AFL-CIO convention, we heard more than once that labor should be "a social movement," that it should "take on capital," etc. But, unless you are the hostage of "pure" forms of the class struggle, isn't that what labor is doing - in the elections last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?

Granted it's not across the board, there are still backwaters, the old style of leadership hasn't completely disappeared, and rank-and-file participation is not where it should be.

But isn't that an old movie? Is going over in righteous indignation the litany of sins of the labor movement the most productive thing that we can do? Doesn't it make far more sense to note the new development and directions, the new thinking, and the new composition of labor's leadership? Do we think that the transition from the legacy of the Cold War and the so-called Golden Age of capitalism can happen in a day, in a month, in a decade? Change is hard, but when sprouts of change come to the light of day we should nurture them.

Our understanding of Marxism reveals that in the process of exploitation, not only surplus value, but also oppositional tendencies arise - albeit uneven and full of contradictions and inconsistencies - but arise nonetheless to challenge corporate prerogatives and class rule.

An under appreciation of the new developments in labor can only weaken the broader movement for change.
Marxism

Finally, Marxism is an open-ended, integrated, and comprehensive set of ideas to conceptualize and change the world - a world outlook. It brings to the light the existing and developing regularities and laws of social development of societies, and especially capitalist society.

Thus, continually deepening our understanding of Marxism's basic theoretical constructions is of crucial importance to us - not to mention the movement as a whole.

At the same time, Marxism is not simply a science (understood in a general sense) and worldview, but it is also a methodology.

Marxist methodology absorbs and metabolizes new experience; it gives special weight to new phenomena.

It isn't about timeless abstractions, pure forms, ideal types, categorical imperatives unsullied by inconvenient facts, unexpected turns and anomalies; it doesn't turn partial demands, reformist forces, inconsistent democrats, liberals, social democratic labor leaders, even blue dog democrats, into a contagious flu to be avoided at all costs.

Marxist methodology insists on a concrete presentation of a question and an exact estimate of the balance of forces at any given moment.

As a method of analysis, Marxism emphasizes fluidity, reexamining old and new questions, process, dialectics, and movement; it's about allowing space for individuals and organizations to change.

We should deepen our understanding of Marxism as a science and methodology. And we should not give too much attention to those who take issue with us from the left. When we do, it cuts down on our ability to think creatively and respond practically to new opportunities and developments.

In the era of the Internet, everyone's voice is amplified. If some try to turn Marxism into a sacred canon much like the strict constitutional jurists and biblical literalists do with the Constitution and Bible, so be it; if they want to spend all their time looking for examples of right deviations, to the point where they themselves are simply self-satisfied observers of struggle and too busy to build the people's movement or, in the case of those who are in our party, build our organization and press, so be it.

We will go our own way, focusing our energy and talents on building the working-class movement and our party and press, and be much the wiser for it.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/reflections ... ons-today/
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10797
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 27 Dec 2009, 04:01
Webb doesn't really tell activist what to do though.


Quote:
A deep imprint on class and racial relations will be part of his legacy.


Race possibly but unlikely. The one thing that Obama has done is to bring racism out into the open. Although having a black president is a huge set forward. But class relations? Obama hasn't and won't change shit.

Quote:
Leading up to the AFL-CIO convention, we heard more than once that labour should be "a social movement," that it should "take on capital," etc. But, unless you are the hostage of "pure" forms of the class struggle, isn't that what labour is doing - in the elections last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?


The labour movement has only begun (in the United States) to become a social movement. It is only after they have been beaten down over decades have they begun to become a social movement again. They have hardly taken a stance on the war, outside the longshoremen few other locals (not even unions) have taken a stance against the war. Also most foriegn unions are still suspicious of the "AFL-CIA," case study Venezeula (presesntly and it should be noted that they still recieve government money for that). Also most of their social movements are, sadly, the unions just writing checks. With no one really knowing that the unions are contributing to their cause. Their communication skills are horrible.

The labor movement has to stop relying on democratic candidates and promote their ISSUES and not the Democratic candidates.

Quote:
Change is hard, but when sprouts of change come to the light of day we should nurture them.


Back and fourth battles between Democratic capitalist and Republican capitalists can hardly be considered change.

Quote:
In the era of the Internet, everyone's voice is amplified.


A blog is hardly ones voice being amplified.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 830
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Dec 2009, 21:48
What if?
by: Sam Stark
December 23 2009


SigningOfTheSocialSecurityActCROPPED

What if this is 1935 and Congress is getting ready to vote on the Social Security Act?

As political progressives, union activists or whatever, do you support the bill or oppose it?

No-brainer, right?

So what if I told you that by supporting the 1935 Social Security Act you would be selling out the working class and capitulating to right-wing special interests who wrote half the bill?

Didn't see that one coming, didja?

To get Social Security passed, progressives had to agree to exclude nearly one-half of the working class, including two-thirds of all African Americans and more than one-half of all women.

Yep, that's the deal you would have had to make in 1935 to pass what we know now is one of the most progressive and successful governmental programs of all time. But in 1935, it didn't look that way when progressives had to accept the deal racist, reactionary Southern Democrats laid down in exchange for their votes.

These backward elements held power over key committees that could have scuttled Social Security and prevented even a vote. Their deal? Exclude all domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians and social workers. Their special interest? Keeping power by keeping intact the American-style apartheid system they presided over.

So what do we do? Kill the bill and try to come back later or take what you can get now?

Remember this deal was made by progressives during the left's glory days. That's when we had one of the most progressive presidents ever in the White House, the most progressives ever in Congress and the biggest mass movement ever out in the streets. And progressives still had to cut a deal with the Devil.

Protesting is easy. Governing is a bitch.

So let's bring this "what if" game to the present.

What if you are a member of Congress in 2009: do you vote for the deal cut in the Senate or vote to kill the bill?

Not so easy anymore, is it?

We know the flawed Social Security bill was strengthened over the years, adding household workers in 1950 and agricultural, hotel, laundry and state and local government workers in 1954. What we don't know is the future of the current flawed health care bill.

The one nice thing we do know is that improving it will be a lot easier than passing the original bill. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out, many of the future improvements can be done through reconciliation with a simple majority vote as opposed to the anti-democratic, super-majority 60-vote process that gave the sociopath Joe Lieberman power to kill the public option and prevent lowering the enrollment age for Medicare to 55.

So what do we do now?

We still have to figure that one out. But one thing we can't afford to do is make single-payer a dogma. Such rigidity in strategy ties our hands and limits our options. Looking at the world, we see that more nations accomplished the goal of health care for all through a multi-payer system, not a single-payer one. Only Canada, Taiwan and South Korea have chosen to go single-payer.

France is considered to have the world's best health care system while Japan has the longest healthy life expectancy. Single-payer systems? Hardly. French citizens are covered by 14 private insurance companies. The Japanese have about 3,500 private health insurance plans. These multi-payer systems succeed because private insurers there are not allowed to make a profit selling health insurance.

Every nation that has committed itself to providing health care for all its citizens has followed its own unique path to get there. It's a sure bet the United States will never adopt the socialized medicine system of Great Britain, even though our Veterans Administration already is a socialized system with government-owned, government-run hospitals and government-hired doctors.

We could build on this flawed health care bill by expanding Medicare to all Americans of all ages. That would be the most direct route to single payer since the structure already exists, is quite popular (even Tea Baggers love their Medicare) and operates way more efficiently than private insurance with its 3 percent administrative costs verses 20 percent to 30 percent for private insurers.

But it's not certain that most Americans are prepared to kill a whole industry even if many of the clerical workers are absorbed by Medicare to serve the new enrollees.

The private sector has always had a role in our government-run health care. Most of the Medicare workers who process and pay claims are employees of private insurance companies. That was the result of a deal struck in 1965 to help win support for passage of Medicare.

The creation of health insurance exchanges under both the House and Senate bills and the Senate's provision that private insurance companies must reduce their administrative costs to 10 percent could move us in the direction of a French-German-Japanese-Swiss model. In these and other multi-payer countries, private insurers collect premiums set by government regulation, pay all claims immediately under rates set by government negotiations with doctors and hospitals, and cannot deny coverage for any reason under strict government regulation.

So what if it turns out that most Americans decide they prefer a multi-payer over a single-payer health care system?

Protesting is easy. Governing is a bitch.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 830
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Dec 2009, 22:28
I don't think there are serious internal contradictions inside the CPUSA. Alan Maki the main instigator was expelled from the party in 2007 and uses multiple personas online to create a controversy that does not exists. Even sinking low enough to misrepresent himself as a CPUSA leader and give interviews to John Birchers to expose Obama's "communist" ties. If you read the discussions at the articles I linked to, you will see that the "dissenters" represent a tiny minority in the party who have been consistently outvoted.

The CPUSA represents a centrist current of the world Communist movement. It has not embraced Eurocommunism and is to the left of CPs of China, Japan, Russia and India. The CPs to the left of the CPUSA are in Latin America, Portugal and Greece. While there are some friendly disagreements this is mostly due to different contradictions.

The Democratic Party is akin to the Radical Socialist Party of France. It has its origins in the Democratic-Republican Societies which were supported by the Revolutionary French Republic. Today the RSP of France is a Gaullist Party taking part in a center-right coalition, and yet they are the direct descendants of the French Jacobins. In the same way the DP can be seen as the legacy of the American Jacobins. Marx and Lenin saw the importance of alliance with the Jacobin section of the bourgeoisie.

I suggest a perusal of Marx and Engels' brilliant observations of the unique political situation in the USA

"First, the Constitution, based as in England upon party government, which causes every vote for any candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties to appear to be lost. And the American, like the Englishman, wants to influence his state; he does not throw his vote away."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/le ... merica.htm

Thursday, September 06, 2007
CPUSA Statement
Issues concerning recent emails/statements by Alan Maki

The Communist Party, USA is taking the unusual step of issuing this statement because of a barrage of recent emails and public statements by Alan Maki. Many have received emails from Alan Maki attacking a broad range of progressive activists. In many he represents himself as a member of the Communist Party, USA.

Alan Maki is not a member of nor does he reflect the views of the Communist Party, USA. He was dropped from membership three years ago because of his attacks on progressives. He continues to target elected officials, union leaders, and other leaders in the broader mass movements for social change.

The Communist Party believes the only path to social and economic justice is through the struggle for unity. We are deeply involved in efforts to organize the broadest possible coalitions against the Bush administration and its policies. The policies of the Communist Party have long been premised on working to unite all who struggle for democracy, peace and justice.

National Board, CPUSA 8.24.2007
Kamran Heiss
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Dec 2009, 22:32
Quote:
The CPUSA represents a centrist current of the world Communist movement. It has not embraced Eurocommunism and is to the left of CPs of China, Japan, Russia and India. The CPs to the left of the CPUSA are in Latin America, Portugal and Greece. While there are some friendly disagreements this is mostly due to different contradictions.


Where would you place Germany's DKP and MLPD?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Dec 2009, 22:43
heiss93 wrote:
So what do we do? Kill the bill and try to come back later or take what you can get now?
[...]
Protesting is easy. Governing is a bitch.


I have to agree that a lousy bill is better than no bill, but also warn that this veers dangerously close to economicism. Are communists to be reduced to foremens, interceding for workers and asking for their bosses' benevolence?

This eerily starts to sound like the "ship of fools" with people clammoring for better treatment and becoming overjoyed with concessions while the ship goes forwards to its doom, instead of seizing the ship and turning it around.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Dec 2009, 22:46
Quote:
This eerily starts to sound like the "ship of fools" with people clammoring for better treatment and becoming overjoyed with concessions while the ship goes forwards to its doom, instead of seizing the ship and turning it around.


Awesome metaphor.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Dec 2009, 23:06
The Unabomber made it (a right wing nut!). It's supposed to be an argument against socialism, but I take it as a metaphor against economicism and identity politics.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 21 Jan 2010, 02:17
Glenn Beck is an idiot comparing the CPUSA to the Nazi party the Nazis were not socialist they just had used the name " The National Socialist German Workers Party to attract the working class Glenn Beck should do some research
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Jan 2010, 06:41
Lol. Glenn Beck knows full well that the CPUSA and the Nazi party have nothing to do with one another. His show is fully propagandistic and purposefully so.

Also your signature, you can't use the red font. That is reserved solely for moderation.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Apr 2009, 23:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 Jan 2010, 06:58
I missed that part of the rules. I've seen where people have used red once in a blue moon and not gotten in trouble for it. Hell I've done it myself once or twice. And I think people can tell whether it's a mod edit or a simple color for emphasis. Furthermore, if it's against this unwritten rule (this is the first I've heard about it since I've been here) how come I can so easily access the red color? Why not block it for common users? It couldn't be that hard, could it? SF is clearly adept at programming language enough to pick which colors we can access.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but I think if you're going to tell someone they can't do x, a rule against x oughtta be in the forum rules sticky. I don't mind not using red, but it should be made clear ahead of time.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Jan 2010, 07:13
Quote:
how come I can so easily access the red color? Why not block it for common users? It couldn't be that hard, could it? SF is clearly adept at programming language enough to pick which colors we can access


Yeah its kinda hard. Plus all of the other shit that it could frag up in the process. Its way easier to just tell people about it. Not like I'm jumping down Red Brigade's throat about it.

Although you're right it does need to be formalized as a written rule but I'll leave that to chaz... whenever he comes back.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Apr 2009, 23:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 Jan 2010, 07:21
Can't any admin add a rule? Or do they all need to convene or something like that?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Jan 2010, 07:25
Chaz is usually the one who handles shit like this. But there isn't any reason why SciHobo or Flanker couldn't do it.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.