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

Party of Communists USA, a new pro-Soviet Party

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 17 Jun 2016, 15:14
I was looking through the links on the Revolutionary Democracy page; and discovered this relatively new party Party of Communists USA. They seem to have emerged around a current associated with the US Soviet Friendship Association as well as the anti-revisionist factions within the CPUSA. At the same time there also seems to be a Hoxhaist current within it as well. Revolutionary Democracy is somewhat sectarian dogmatist, so I wouldn't expect them to link to a party that wasn't Hoxhaist.

I read around their website for their line on these topics, but couldn't find anything specific. My best speculation is that similar to North Star Compass, and the Soviet Friendship Society, their point of unity is a defense of the USSR up to 1953, and they also include currents that defend the Brezhnev-era USSR.

The deletion of their wikipedia article made it into Gawker, even a cursory glance by a Gawker reporter could figure out that their defining issue was the USSR

http://gawker.com/this-week-in-wikipedi ... 1775760443


http://www.partyofcommunistsusa.org/home-1.html
Kamran Heiss
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Jun 2016, 03:40
"Communist" is the political N-word in American discourse. No party with the "Big C" in its title is going anywhere, under or overground, and that's that. Bernie couldn't even game the system using the milder "S" word. It's hitching your wagon to a pile of dinosaur bones.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 20 Jun 2016, 06:26
Sounds like some cowardly defeatism right there.

Also as far as I can tell the PCUSA has basically no membership. I've never met even one of their members on or offline
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Jun 2016, 10:56
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Sounds like some cowardly defeatism right there.

Nah, dawg, that's some straight Machiavellian realpolitik right there. Real talk!
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Jun 2016, 16:17
There is some truth to what Comrade Gulper says for a party like the CPUSA, given their politics and tactics. And indeed they did have a debate about changing their name at their last convention.

But for a party that revolves around the defense of Stalin's USSR, I don't think there is anything to hide.

(Then again the militantly pro-Stalin PLP has the rather innocuous sounding name Progressive Labor Party. And Stalin himself advised Hoxha to rename the ruling Communist Party of Albania into the Party of Labor.)

I was thinking about this topic and about how the decision to transliterate the word "Soviet" makes it sound like a foreign nationality. When in fact Soviet means radical proletarian direct democracy. A Party of Worker Councils. But that sounds misleading for a Marxist-Leninist party masking itself as Council Communist. And anyway its not words that matter but content. Since most Americans are sarcastically aware that the USSR claimed to be a "workers' paradise." So transliterating their name as Union of Democratic Workers' Councils wouldn't change anything.
Kamran Heiss
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Jun 2016, 01:02
Something like All-American Progressive Party has a much better ring to it. And there's no cowardly masking or dodging involved: It would be the name of a party that truly does represent all Americans and social and political justice for all Americans.

The Soviet Union is gone, and if it were ever restored on a portion of its original soil, you can bet your last ruble they won't explicitly follow any of the Lenin or Stalin era constitutions. Meanwhile, what's the point of founding an American party dedicated to the defense of an institution that was never American to begin with? Sympathy and historical affinity? Sure. Explicit aping? Worthless. It reeks of a sectarian religious splitter group based on Biblical literalism and snake handling. This "party" is a bunch of trolls gesturing for publicity on the Internet, and nothing else.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 Jun 2016, 01:55
I don't agree that Bernie Sanders was held back by the term Socialism. If we just wanted someone slightly to the Left of Hilary, that is what Martin O'Malley tried to position himself as and he got no where. Bernie had his surge because it was a strong anti-establishment year in both parties. And Socialism in a word symbolized all that, much more than "Democrat more Progressive than Hilary" could have. It is true that Bernie ultimately lost. But who could have predicted that someone openly calling himself a Socialist, could paint this much of the map Red, even if was just the Democratic primary? This is the most success Socialism has ever had in the USA, even compared to the golden progressive age of Debs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_o ... 6#Overview

The entire Northern Democratic Party is as ready for Socialism as the Northern Republican Party was for Abolitionism in 1856.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... 56#Results

Bill Maher is even telling the millennials to calm down about the socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrfbWtMgyk8
Kamran Heiss
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Jun 2016, 05:08
heiss93 wrote:
The entire Northern Democratic Party is as ready for Socialism as the Northern Republican Party was for Abolitionism in 1856.

Abraham Lincoln would never have amounted to anything more than President of half a nation if he had been restricted to the verdict of the ballot box. I do wonder if another ruinous conflict is necessary to cement these gains...even if in only half of a nation or its successor state.

Frankly, I'll move to Boston and pay higher taxes if it gets me health care in my ancient days. Imagine never having to deal with the ravings of a Texas accented Teabagger lunatic in the news ever again, except as a "foreign affairs" story that can safely be ignored.


One thing's for sure: Forming a sectarian splitter group won't inch us any closer to real political gains.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 Jun 2016, 07:12
Since we are getting into a larger discussion of terminology and appeal. I was doing some musing on whether the Russians made a mistake to call themselves Soviets. Its not like the West forced the term Soviet on them. The Russians chose to use the Russian word. And not just in the West, but even in China they used a transliteration of the Su-wu-wei instead of a native Chinese word. And so Soviets just becomes a term for a nationality. The Soviet people.

What if instead of transliterating the word Soviet they had always translated it. For Soviet always write Workers' Council. Would that have had an impact in educating the world on what a Soviet really is? Not that revolutions are won by words alone. And as I said before, its not that workers in the West didn't know what the USSR claimed to be. Like the sarcastic use of the term "workers' paradise." So even the haters of the USSR knew that in theory it was supposed to be owned by the workers.

Workers' Council draws up those fuzzy libertarian socialist feelings of proletarian direct democracy. But I suppose ultimately what counts is what a thing actually is and not what it calls itself. Few in America believe North Korea to be super-democratic because they are the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.