I was pointing out a marked difference between the older day's call for revolution, and Webb's desire to work through the political machine. I'm not pointing out which of the older leaders was better, I just brought up Hall because he preceded Webb.
From what I understand Hall was decent but he was the one who declared that they'd stop running people for office since they weren't getting anywhere. Webb is horrible though.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
How did Webb and the social democrats even get in control after Hall?
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
I don't know if this is so much a criticism of the CPUSA so much as it is a criticism of the dominant faction of the CPUSA. If anything it appears to be urging anti-revisionists to join and fight the reformist elements. I still might join, but for entirely different reasons than I had a year ago.
Last edited by Red_Son on 23 Sep 2010, 06:09, edited 1 time in total.
Miss Susie wrote:
The party's heyday was really the Popular Front years of the late 1930s. I hate to say it, but the Hitler-Stalin Pact was a blow from which the party never really recovered. They lost a lot of members, for the simple fact that they couldn't adequately explain the new party line when they had built their whole movement from 1935 on around anti-fascism. Also, a large percentage of the membership was Jewish and the pact did not sit well with them. They gained some of their momentum back during the war years, but it was not enough and they were too weak to battle against Mc Carthyism.
"I am not the champion of lost causes, but the champion of causes not yet won."-Norman Thomas
I'm beginning to think that since the cold war is over, perhaps it might be best for the CPUSA to join with the Socialist Party U.S.A. I know that I'm planning on voting for the Socialist Party's candidate for senate, Dan Labotz . What is needed I feel is a strong, singular, socialist party. And the CPUSA is not much different from Democratic Socialists of America. Like the only difference is that the Communists still invoke Lenin on occasion, while the Democratic Socialists of course do not. They both choose to tail the Democrats.
In which case, the CPUSA and SP should basically rename themselves the pro-Labor faction of the Democratic party, and just host a "patch over" party to that effect. Because they'd basically be no different at that point than this new British Labour Party with the what's his name leader that pledges to avoid being "in thrall to the unions".
"Baldrick. What starts with 'come here' and ends in 'oww'?"
Something similar did occur with the progressive S-D Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota, through a merger with the Democratic Party.
I take it you're suggesting something like this happening on a nationwide scale? I guess in the US, where there really isn't much of a unified radical left movement, it might make strategically to do so. I would hope that the "socialist/labor" wing would be bringing the Dems more to the Left, and not the other way around.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, and you're saying that this something they should do because of what they have become, but you don't approve?
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Well, don't forget that the Socialist Party USA is still to the left of the Democratic Socialists of America, having been created by the Debs Caucus (the left-wing caucus within the fragmented Socialist Party of America); they still run their own candidates for President and other elected offices. In that sense, they are perhaps to the left of the CPUSA, in that they are trying to build a labour party to the left of the Democrats right now rather than waiting for better conditions. In a sense, perhaps the CPUSA are ironically more akin to the cautious Mensheviks and the SPUSA to the Bolsheviks who said that Russia was ready for socialism (though that analogy can't really be stretched very far; obviously, neither party supports open revolution, especially of a violent nature).
The main difference between the CPUSA and the DSA, it seems to me, is that the CPUSA uses Marxist rhetoric and is less explicit in declaring its role to be that of a left-wing pressure group within (and/or parallel to) the Democratic Party. Can anyone else point out any significant differences?
Personally, I no longer think of myself as a Marxist as such. I would certainly prefer a socialist government and society to a capitalist one, but am not convinced of the need for a Leninist-style vanguard party that operates on the principle of democratic centralism; I am also sceptical of any party in the first world that entirely eschews electoral politics in favour of direct action (and presumably violent revolution, which is not happening), so that immediately eliminates a number of parties from my list (e.g. many Maoist and anti-revisionist parties). Besides, the parties that are socialist but not officially Marxist often make use of Marxist-style class analysis in their literature, so what is the practical difference?
For these reasons, I see the Socialist Party USA as the best party on the left in the States. If I were in France, I would support the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA). If I were in Germany, I would support Die Linke. In Canada, I like the New Democrats (which contains the NDP Socialist Caucus, as well as a faction of the Trotskyist IMT) and Québec solidaire (though it's not an all-Canada party).
"Unpolitisch sein heißt: politisch sein, ohne es zu merken." - Rosa Luxemburg
Alternative Display:Mobile view