Articles » cpusa

Convention Discussion: A Reply to "A Time to Grow"

Dan Margolis — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:02:00 -0500

I was pleased to read the pre-Convention discussion document, "A Time to Grow," by a number of youthful members of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League. It is always inspiring to see that there are other young people around who want to help take responsibility for building the organization. Still, I disagree with some of the particulars, specifically on the role of the Party and the "Communist plus," as well as on the process of growing the Communist movement overall.

The main thing that the Communist Party can contribute, i.e. its main role, is in the field of strategy and tactics. It is entirely true, as the document noted, that anyone reading this would likely also be working on the fight for to support the health care plan that was put forward by Barack Obama, along with organizations like Organizing for America, HCAN, etc. But, because we have a background in the CPUSA and the YCL, we bring something different and special to this movement-a strategic concept of who the main players are, who the main enemies slowing down the process of change are, what is possible and so on.

When there were setbacks in the fight for health care, there was demoralization and frustration. Our Bronx club, which was instrumental in building an Organizing for America-based local organization, helped fight this feeling and, in the process, gained a good deal of experience. It can be said that, without the Communist Party, and solid leadership from one comrade in particular, the OFA group could have easily disbanded itself. Also, the Party was able and is able to play a leadership role in the question of what we're fighting for, and in what context: why not some kind of National Health Service, as in the U.K., right now, or for Medicare for All? Why was even the watered-down Senate bill a victory? How do any of these victories contribute to the forward motion of the struggle overall?

Putting all those questions together is a key role of the Party and YCL, as it helps to build the unity and forward motion of the progressive forces.

Another example would be the upcoming jobs fight. We've said that this is the key struggle, and that puts us in agreement with all of the major players in the core forces. There is a national coalition in place for this battle, but how do we help build it? It is our job to help bring it to life, and to localize it, bring it to the grassroots. This is something different from place to place, and it takes a Communist Party to figure this out. In New York, we have a situation in which the Central Labor Council isn't playing a leading role in the city's labor movement. Most of the biggest unions in the city are outside the CLC. How do we bring them together in this fight? (And in so doing, how can we contribute to overall labor unity in this city?)

At the grassroots level, how do we pull organizations and people in our periphery into this coalition? In Brooklyn, we have to consider how we can bring the large Black churches into the fight. How can we utilize the organizational connections we have, the relationships with elected officials, to do so?

On the electoral front, it would be good to have more of our own candidates running for office. But right now, this can't be our main electoral contribution. We have to be part of the fight to defeat what's left of the ultra right, and make sure they don't make a comeback in the mid-term elections. Others on the left see these elections either as ends in themselves or deviations from the "real" struggle. But the Communist Party can exercise a leadership role by helping to show the importance of electing or defending Democrats as part of an overall strategy on the road towards socialism.

And we, more than anyone else, can and do tie together the fight for jobs with the electoral battle coming up later this year. Being in these struggles-not initiating new things separate and aside from them-is where we can meet people, gain new members.

In all these things, fellow activists will be impressed by Communists not only or even primarily due to our long-term goals, but by our sober-minded estimates of where we are, what the balance of power is, and what the next step has to be.

On the question of membership overall, while I feel the same frustration that the document's authors feel, I don't agree with the reasons listed for the Party's slow growth (the document mistakenly states that the Party is getting smaller; actually, aside from attrition, the Party is slowly gaining members). I don't think we can blame the national staff, or lack of will coming from our leadership overall. I would have to say that they are doing a good job overall in the current situation.

All of the comrades on staff in a non-editorial position are in touch with the membership in their respective areas on a day-to-day basis, as are the editorial comrades who are not overwhelmed by their tasks of writing and editing the Party press.

We are in a strange period: while there is an energized populace, ready to fight for progress, many, if not all, people's organizations are struggling for membership. This is a fact that must be taken into account. The Party has been experimenting with different forms of organization: we recently replaced the Organizing Department with a Coordinating Committee, which includes all of the district organizers, who come together twice monthly to discuss the best ways to implement plans going forward. This committee just appointed two leading comrades to coordinate membership.

We could put together numeric goals, but that doesn't address the real political and organizational questions that need to be figured out.

There are a few other things I would add, but won't go into for the sake of brevity. We do have a plan, so to speak, as to which industries are our main national priorities, as well as place to place. We in New York have a special emphasis on the teachers, transit workers, health care workers, the public workers: these are the most organized and decisive sections of the New York City working class.

Also, I would take issue with the discussion of who "the left" is. We can't narrow it down simply to the 20 percent of the population that chose "socialism" on a single opinion poll that has, in my opinion, received way too much attention. We've seen the beginnings of a really new left: within the labor movement under Trumka, those who have come out for some form of health reform, the new jobs coalition, the movement of activists in Organizing for America, etc. These are the newly invigorated activists on the rising left with whom we want to be associated.

Once again, though I disagree with some of the things the comrades said, I am glad that the spirit of building the Party and the YCL is being taken seriously by a number of comrades around my own age.

Convention Discussion: A Time to Grow

YCLers in transition — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:10:00 -0500

The following document differs somewhat from the Convention Discussion guidelines. This submission owes itself to many contributors who are young members of the Communist Party and/or the Young Communist League and came out of a number of conversations betwen YCL and Party leaders last year, though it is not submitted by any constituted collective. As such, the contribution was written before the guidelines and main discussion documents were developed and is longer than we have asked contributions to be.

WHAT IS THIS?

We have the opportunity to build something big; a large, influential and effective Communist Party USA. After the incredible movement to elect Barack Obama, more far-reaching solutions and socialism in particular are back at the dinner table for discussion. Though socialism is not the current unifying demand of the day, opportunities for increasing our base quantitatively and qualitatively have increased ten-fold. If we work collectively, with flexibility and establish a strategic plan for growth, we can strengthen the membership base of our organization and build power to win concrete change in the lives of the working class.

As a part of the often missing generation of the Party, our inspiration for drafting this discussion document was born both out of inspiration and frustration. On the one hand, in our Party we gain clear analyses of the problems that face working people, and thus short and long term solutions to those problems. These topics are accessible via our publications and web sites to a huge on-line readership around the country.

However, we also find our programs and campaigns inconsistent, our membership tiny and shrinking-despite objective conditions that should be sparking growth, and no real grasp of the scope and influence of our Party outside of its publication. We find club meetings unfulfilling and unsatisfying, not because our club leaders are incompetent, but due to a lack of over all political guidance and direction on the concrete role of the Communist Party in everyday struggles and how to best build and sustain the membership of the Communist Party.

Although we have general agreement with our over all strategic policy, we feel that we have gotten organizationally comfortable-even lazy-in its correctness. As Sam Webb recently inferred, it is not enough for us to have the right political outlook. It means absolutely nothing if we do not have the bodies on the ground to back up our words and theories with action.

The question is how can we translate the influence we have in the realm of ideas and politics into more people in action in their communities? Finding a solution to this is the basis by which we believe we can increase the participation of our generation, and others, in the Communist Party.

Though it is easy to complain, we challenged ourselves to at least start the conversation on how we can improve our organization over all-identifying our own initial vision for growth and retention. We are entering a period where the idea of socialism is not taboo, and in some instances it is even desirable. But at the same time, we cannot sit back and just assume we will grow. Upon that realization, we understood that this is our Party just as much as anyone else's and we must take responsibility for its continued success. This document is our initial step in that effort.

The purpose of this document is to spark discussion about the political necessity of building our membership, particularly among our generation, and potential paths to reach that goal. It calls for us to discuss ways in which to be more concrete about how we build our organization. It is an initial discussion of a basic plan for growth. All victories, political and organizational, start with a plan-and that's what we seek to catalyze.

This document is separated into 2 sections:

The Communist Plus: Defining Our Value Added
Does the Communist Party Still Exist? Access to the Communist Party None of the suggestions or conclusions noted under each section are definitive. That is because our purpose is to spark discussion, and to challenge all of us to really define what we are, and what we want to be.

The two actual proposals we do suggest are:

to create an addendum to our strategic policy outlining some very broad, general strategies for membership growth; what industries should we target, what regions, etc...to be presented to the National Convention
to see a report of our Party's membership at each National Committee meeting- including how many members we have, where they are, who pays dues, how many clubs do we have, etc...

Again, we have an opportunity to build the Party exponentially. The survival of our Party depends on active engagement from all generations, and our generation is in need of a strong Communist Party.

The ideas in this document, though coming from a group of comrades in our 20s and 30s, are not just to spark participation from our age group. In fact, we think they could add to the overall health and vibrancy of the Party.

We seek input and feedback from the broadest collective possible in order to cast a wide net for growth and retention.

SIDE NOTE

The long-standing formulations of what is "Left" and what is "Center" may be inaccurate and not useful when it comes to our work. After all, what is "Left" today may be "Center" tomorrow. One who has a "Center" position on economic recovery has a "Left" position on healthcare. Most would agree that the Communist Party should focus on the specific work people are doing and identify who to build with on that basis. These often "unaffiliated" people are left out of our abstract discussions, and yet are a part of the mass movement we need to be mobilizing and building with.

Part 1: THE COMMUNIST PLUS

Defining Our Value Added

As members of the Communist Party fighting the good fight on a daily basis, we have to ask ourselves, what is our value added? What am I contributing to the movement as a Communist that I would not be able to contribute if I were not a member? How is our contribution to the movement magnified by being members of the Communist Party?

If we cannot consistently define our value-added in any given struggle, we will not be able to provide a good reason for someone to join and/or to be active in the Communist Party.

OUR VALUE ADDED: Center-Left Unity

That said, it is at the root of our strategic policy to build unity between the "Center" and the "Left" against the Ultra-right and, as we progress, monopoly capital as a whole. In order to successfully build and strengthen Center-Left unity, we must have strong relationships with the "Center" and the "Left" in any given campaign or issue. It is our belief that the Communist Party USA is best positioned to do this, given our historic relationships within both Left and Center forces.

After the presidential elections, Sam Webb alerted us to a survey that claims over 20% of those polled prefer some form of socialism to capitalism, and a similar percentage were not sure. If we did a sub-experiment we would probably note that as the age of those polled decreased the percentage of those preferring socialism to capitalism would be even higher.

But it is not enough to revel in the poll results. We need to discuss what we are doing to reach out to that 20 plus percent, so many of whom are from our generation and younger. How are we making ourselves visible, available and accessible to that new and growing socialist minority? What are our clubs doing to attract them? ...to let them know that there is an organization where they can learn more, discuss more and be a part of a collective vision for a socialist USA? Undoubtedly, few of those polled identify as particularly "Left". But they are a part of the progressive movement we are trying to unite in order to defeat the last clinging remnants of the Ultra-Right, and we must be accessible to them.

We have implemented our strategic policy in a way that has not allowed our clubs to pay much attention or find points of collaboration with the broader "Left". This is not to say that we should not struggle to build unity at the Center. But there are tons of people who are actively looking to be a part of an anti-capitalist, and in the best cases a socialist, movement.

The question before us is where/how are we plugging them in? How are we turning their interest in our online publications into active participation in person? How are we reaching out to younger or simply newly radicalized individuals who attend their first rally for healthcare or jobs creation? When these people do not find a way to become active in or with the Communist Party, they look to other forums that may not have the most unifying outlooks. Likewise, we cannot brush off every group that has a varying viewpoint as Ultraleftist.

We have to make more of an effort to be in conversation with these groups in productive spaces-such as at the Left Forum or the other various conferences that are organized by different groups on the "Left". We have isolated ourselves, often unconsciously, from many on the "Left" and we cannot afford to do this anymore. If for no other reason we are simply too small.

We applaud the recent attempts by Party leaders to reach out to various Left allies such as the Committees of Correspondence and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. We also support ideas to host a seminar with Parties of the western hemisphere or joint conferences with some of our friends on the Left. These are excellent developments that can compliment our work with the Center and build our own ranks at the same time.

A bigger Party requires more openness to different tendencies and ideas...so long as unity in the final decision is held above all else. In our current culture, there is not a lot of room for that. Disagreeing on anything from small organizational matters to large political questions gets a person easily marginalized.

One of the most unattractive elements of our Party to the younger generations is the lingering paranoia many carry post the 1991, and earlier, splits. While a certain level of precaution is always justified, it cannot limit us from growing and moving forward. As we build the Party, we must shift our culture to embrace a higher level of discussion and viewpoints.

OUR VALUE ADDED: Strengthening the Power of Workers

Looking even further outward, what are we doing to motivate workers to fight back in this period of extreme repression and fear at the workplace-especially among a generation with the lowest union density? How are we really engaging existing and new members of the rank and file?

In the last 4 years, we have revisited our industrial concentration policy in a way that ties it more directly to the expanding global economy. We were called on to build international committees in our trade unions in "Labor in an Era of Capitalist Globalization", a great idea that could strengthen solidarity between unions in the United States and elsewhere fighting against the same multi-national companies. Similar ideas came out of the manufacturing think-tank that occurred in 2007. But it may be worth revisiting again, to get a deeper understanding of how we can really engage workers at the epicenters of our changing global economy, and further act in a way that empowers workers to get more active.

At the center of our industrial concentration policy is an assessment of the commanding heights at any given time. Once upon a time if you strengthened the wages for US autoworkers you could create a precedent or wage floor for all industrial workers. Or if the transport workers go on strike, an entire city's economy can be greatly impacted.

However, if we revisit the current commanding heights given the collapse of US auto companies, we notice some changes. Consider the case of Wal-Mart. Wal- Mart is now the largest employer in the United States; a part of a service sector that is now the only growing industry in the country. And it is really growing. We all agree that Wal-Mart jobs stink-low wages, long hours, lack of job security, and inconsistent benefits as our criteria.

But what if a Wal-Mart job was a good, green job; a union job? If we were able to organize all Wal-Mart workers, it would set a new floor wage for retail and service workers. Even more, what if Wal-Mart workers were organized not simply as retail workers, but in coordination with the industrial supply chain that stocks the shelves? Imagine union autoworkers staffing Wal-Mart auto parts and gas stations, union textile workers staffing clothing and department stores, union food and commercial workers staffing the grocery stores in Super Wal-Marts, or more Teamsters driving the delivery trucks.

Now there is no doubt that this is a "pie in the sky" idea. But why give up on it? Why not struggle within our unions to push more coordination in this sector? Why not focus an industrial concentration on retail and service workers with a nuanced approach that connects them to the global industries that they are a part of? There is a reason that the commanding heights of the service industry, supposedly progressive companies like Whole Foods and Starbucks, are fighting so aggressively against the Employee Free Choice Act. They understand the significant shift in power in favor of the working class that would be created nationally if their employees were organized into unions, and they will do everything to prevent it.

To clarify, this is not to argue against the creation of new manufacturing jobs, particularly green manufacturing jobs and building new infrastructure...like public transit for example. And it certainly isn't to shift focus from the handful of manufacturing industries that are still in the United States. But we should open up the battlefield on another front-the service sector front-to reach more lowwage and younger workers in need of unions and in need of the Communist Party.

We must also be able to define our value-added in broader labor-led struggles that happen outside of the workplace. For example, participating in the current battle for a public healthcare option is something that most of us would do whether we were members of the Party or not. But how could we help push the fight forward in a way that only we can? Maybe we could release a brochure outlining the differences between a public option, single-payer, and how we-the real socialists-define socialized medicine to shift the right-wing red-baiting away from the Obama Administration and back to the "reds".

OUR VALUE-ADDED: Building Electoral Power

Last, consider our approach to elections in general. Currently, the conditions rarely if ever allow us to run open Communists for office. When members do run for office, it is within the auspices of the Democratic Party. Otherwise, we find ourselves supporting progressive (and in some instances not-so-progressive) Democratic candidates. Despite how much many of us would love to run comrades for office as Communists, we all agree that this is how we currently have to function in this political climate.

However, there is one thing missing. How do we get from here to running as open progressives or as a coalition labor party or even as explicitly Left in an election? And how do we get from there to running as Communists? What changes need to be made to the electoral system to get us closer to holding real power? What is our long-term plan?

If we do not have a basic vision and a plan for strengthening independent, left political organization around our electoral approach, then we are not only failing ourselves, but the working class in general.

So how do we do this? Consider 2 examples.

A former YCLer, ran and won elected office in California. The campaign organization that helped her win has little to no relationship to the Communist Party (or YCL), and as an elected she rarely communicates back to the California District and/or the YCL. Through her election, those in the Santa Barbara suburb gained a progressive ally in their city council, and what the Party gained remains unclear.

Thousands of miles away in Chicago, another younger comrade is running for a similar position. The organization pushing his election, the IPO (Independent Political Organization) shares many of our values and has many of our members (and ex-members) among its ranks. It is a leadership development body for future candidates like our comrade, whose affiliations with the Communist Party are well-known throughout the city even though he is running as a Democrat.

We could argue that his election would be a huge value-added for the visibility and viability of the Communist Party in Chicago and the Midwest. Further, having more comrades in decision-making roles under the Democratic Party opens the door to increasing our effectiveness and influences within that party. Is this not what the radical and religious right-wing did within the umbrella of the Republican Party?

Some will argue our electoral system is not set up this way. How will we ever win? But instead of being defeatist about it, why not ask what changes need to be made to the electoral culture and system in the United States to get us closer to holding real power? Should comrades begin fighting for the fusion voting models that made the Working Families Party successful in New York, a model that got Ben Davies elected? Should we struggle for some form of proportional representation? Recognizing that electoral reform is obviously not the only struggle we should engage in, what parts of it can we prioritize to strengthen our participation in this arena of struggle right now?

We have a handful of younger and older comrades wanting to run for office. Why not give them a way to do so that simultaneously helps to build the Communist Party, regardless of if they run as open Communists or not. If we are going to build a real movement for socialism we have to have concrete plans for these transitions. We have to struggle more with how we apply our strategic policy to the current electoral possibilities while anticipating next steps. And we have to have a vision for how our current approach sets us up for engaging in a period of increased opportunities. The upcoming mid-term and on-going municipal elections give us plenty of room to practice.

Part 2: DOES THE COMMUNIST PARTY STILL EXIST?

Access to the Communist Party USA

In the past year, the Party has taken huge strides in making our publications more accessible to a wider audience by improving our web presence. News and opinion are circulated more on-line via email, virtual networks, and other forums than any other way. Strengthening our internet presence allows us to draft more articles, exposing more injustices at work and in our communities, and providing a real vision of a better world. More articles on line allow us to print the best of the best for distribution on our picket lines, in our classrooms and at demonstrations. This difficult transition has already improved the visibility of the Communist Party and Young Communist League in this period. Our generation in particular has benefited greatly from this shift.

Now it is time to take that drive for changing and adjusting to the new circumstances in other parts of our organization.

BUILDING THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA

Outside of our publications, what are the forums through which people can join? And what does joining mean?

As of now, individuals can join on-line and/or with another member asking them to join...particularly in the context of an active club or district. Most of our success has come in the form of in person recruitment, as the follow up is more concrete and relational. But we do not have to limit ourselves to chance encounters.

For starters, clubs need more support in developing recruitment lists, and implementing recruitment strategies. Strong clubs know how to work a good list, and have varying points of engagement opportunities that allow people with different levels of investment to participate. There are many ways to build a good list for recruitment: national subscription lists, targeting petitioning on local issues, voter registration, etc... Although not all of these individuals will join the Communist Party as full members, many will sign on to participate in the various actions and events we organize.

There are other ways we can increase our visibility to spark interest in joining. Consider caucuses of Communist Party members within our unions and mass organizations. We've certainly done it before. Our positions and approaches build unity, and people benefit from our input. Why not acknowledge publicly what those ideas are rooted in? Having separate meetings of independent Party members in a mass organization or of comrades doing similar mass work could strengthen our work and contribution to any given area of struggle. These club and district level ideas can be helpful, but ultimately we need a nationally coordinated recruitment plan. We have never been a Party of "let every flower bloom". We need our national center to help us learn where we need to grow most based on patterns in union density, electoral tendencies and/or bases for key industries. We cannot depend solely on isolated individuals to build clubs in regions where we are weak. We need a nationally coordinated strategy that emphasizes growth in regions and/or industries where we can be most effective.

Such a plan could be kicked off with an organizational "census", or a real assessment of where our members are, their participation rates, their financial contributions, etc... Though we wish we could claim this, it is not a new idea at all. Our Party, and others, used to do this consistently to get a sober look at where we are and where we need to be in order to be effective.

Just like we recognize the need for a strategic path to socialism, so too must we develop a strategic plan for growth.

The National Committee approved a proposal to kick off a college speaking tour of Party leaders to increase visibility and get our ideas out to a wider audience. This is an incredible development! But it is not a new one. To make this successful, those organizing speaking tours or other public actions will have to identify what schools to target and prioritize as well as a plan for follow up based on where we can get the most out of doing so-be it through increased membership or other needed resources.

For example, if Wisconsin is often a swing state in national elections and it has medium to high union density compared to elsewhere in the country, why not prioritize speaking at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee? And once confirmed, how do we automatically build in a smaller orientation or club meeting for those in the audience who are interested in joining and building the Communist Party?

These are just a couple of new (and old) ideas that should encourage us to think more outside the box when determining how to recruit members into the Communist Party. It is true that every member should recruit for the Party. But everyone could use a foot in the door. Even more, the Party over all could benefit from growing in some places where we currently have no one. Party growth must be a national priority, led by the national center.

TAKING OURSELVES SERIOUSLY

Once a member, what people receive when they join is inconsistent. If they are lucky, maybe they will get a copy of our strategic policy-the Road to Socialism. They might get a copy of the latest brochure from the national center or flyer from the district. But nothing is handed out on what it means to be a member of the Communist Party. Such an orientation, written or verbal, would be extremely helpful for those of us who were not around in previous periods where our organization had a stronger culture of participation. Waiting until a new recruit is invested enough to attend a national school is simply too late.

Our organizing department should standardize the process of membership intake-not simply make materials, but to standardize dues, new member education/orientation, and what is expected of us as members of the Communist Party. Further, such an orientation should take popular form (read: popular education) as to fully engage and excite people about their decision to join. Bring back the labor choruses, the 1 act plays, the political cartoons in a more intentional way for new members to grasp various ideas. New members should not have to learn our history and theories through a series of books-many not even written by us.

When cadre are identified as potential club leaders, they should get some level of training and orientation on what the role and responsibility of a club and a club leader is. Although such a curriculum should come out of the organizing department, the regular (possibly quarterly) implementation of such a training could come from seasoned District leadership.

Further, the health of Party finances must be directly linked to the over all strength of the Party membership-and thus made into a political priority each year. Would it be so terrible if the current optional sustainer program (suggested one week's pay) was actually a mandatory dues requirement? Imagine if union dues were optional. Actually, we do not have to imagine. They are optional in Right-to-Work-for-Less states. Is that what our program should be modeled after?

If we do not take ourselves more seriously, no one will. We are a legitimate organization, and a viable political party with a lot of potential. It is not only within reason, but imperative that we increase our base, and thus our finances in that process. If new members join understanding this responsibility, we would not have to waste the limited time of national functionaries rounding up volunteer sustainers.

WHAT WE GET OUT OF IT

Having a clear understanding of what younger working people get out of the Communist Party is important in identifying what makes them join and what makes them stay around. Based on our own initial assessments, we determined that we get a sense of the longview-a better understanding of when to advance and when to retreat and rebuild in order to eventually win socialism. We are able to participate in a collective and be a part of discussions that shape our political approach.

We do not always get to put our ideas into action, practicing and adjusting our theoretical approach. We get dozens of long meetings where nothing is accomplished, where decisions get put off to the next meeting and then the next meeting etc... We get asked to contribute to the fund drives of the Party more out of guilt than being asked to make a real investment that we can see the results of. We read long political reports on line only to be asked to participate in the same action we had already signed up for via other mass organizations. The contribution of our clubs and leaders are often unclear, making members feel like we are wasting our time.

So how do we address this?

Over all this and the constantly fluctuating political climate indicates a need to be more flexible in how we organize our members and in how we engage the broader movement. President Obama himself outlined the need for an independent political movement to essentially counter right-wing forces and help him push a unified agenda-the most advanced demands of the Center.

If and when the next round of bail-outs passes through Congress and the Republicans try to rile up populist conservatism to trash Obama, someone has to be fighting on the ground to keep the heat on the private sector, to expose the racism behind their attacks, and to represent a genuine socialist perspective-in part to give the Administration room to move policy that cannot be misconstrued as socialist programming.

We need our clubs to be a hub for doing just this. Clubs should be a space for discussion about the strategy and direction of local movements; support for Party and YCL activists in their mass work; and the on-going study of Marxism through action and popular political education. Clubs should have a focus, either at a workplace or in a neighborhood, and be engaged in mass work affecting that focus.

Our clubs should be a place where strategies are tested; where challenges are made to various tactics; where unity is strengthened; where talking points are crafted; where the line connecting a seemingly isolated struggle to the global economic crisis and the crisis in capitalism is clearly drawn. Clubs should be a place where we flush out how to localize national demands. The key function of a club in this period should be to consistently and constantly adjust and adapt our strategy to every local and workplace struggle.

Although we are active in existing organizations, we should never wait on anyone but ourselves to provide support to striking workers in our communities. We should always be ready to mobilize for the next pinnacle struggle and ready on a structural level to be a bigger and more active Communist Party.

But these suggestions are broad, and some might argue they are already doing them-and at least a small handful of clubs actually are. But these are not the majority. We must continue our efforts to root out any aspects of our structure, locally and nationally, that limit us from growing.

SOME SPECIFIC IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION

Consider instituting different levels of membership. Why do we just have 1 way for members to participate-ie pay dues and attend club meetings? Why not have constituent membership, where an individual simply signs up to receive online action alerts and gets to participate and/or get a limited vote in district meetings? Constituent membership can be free, requiring individuals to sign up on line and/or via a voter registration form. Why should it be so easy to sign up as a Democrat, and so difficult to join the Communists?

How can we implement a ladder of development that builds leadership from first time joiners to "constituents" to club members to club leaders to district, regional and national cadre?

Just as we are too rigid in our current definitions of membership, we often burden new and enthusiastic members with too much leadership responsibility too fast. We should consider small projects and assignments that new members can take on and build on their experience in the Party such as leading on local petition drives, planning club forums and events, or serving as a liaison to a local coalition. Without being rigid, we could outline a path of leadership development from first joining to Party cadre.

What if clubs met in bigger more public meetings to talk about the mass work people are engaged in (their union, their school, their neighborhood association...), what they're doing, and what role Party members should play in those struggles...not just mobilizing for them but how we can move the work forward. Imagine these meetings lasting no longer than 2 hours, and always including some cultural component, food, an a public space.

Suppose we had district meetings each quarter of all the individual members in a given community, club or no club? These larger discussions could even get into deeper strategy points for a given community, identifying priorities on a local level based on their experience and the latest analysis from the national center. Here is an old idea! Imagine if the motivation for paying dues/sustainer was to have a district organizer-a staff person funded by the district and responsible in large part to the district leadership in addition to the national center.

If the New York District wants a district organizer, they have to raise the resources for it and take responsibility for it happening. Would the investment levels of individual members not skyrocket if they felt they had made this kind of tangible investment? Would there not be more accountability of staff by members?

With the national burden of fundraising to pay for district staff relieved, might not the doors be open to make larger structural changes on the national staff? As of drafting this, there are 17 nationally paid functionaries, or on average 1 paid staff person per 60 or so members. Only a handful of these individuals have direct contact with the grassroots membership base on a daily or even weekly basis.

This ratio is above the capacity of even the strongest union locals with exponentially larger memberships. So why is it not over-capacity for us? All of this comes down to a question of what are our core functions? ...a question we have been asked frequently in the process of stabilizing our finances. But finances cannot be the only motivation for asking this. In identifying our core functions, and which functions in particular should be staffed, we must ask ourselves where we need the most accountability-or the most responsibility for assigned work and being able to answer to or report-back on what was accomplished.

Members should have a good sense of how their dues/sustainers are being spent and what work is being accomplished with it.. Thus, accountability additionally requires debriefing tasks and evaluating projects. Any and every healthy organization engages in this consistently.

A paid staff person has more direct accountability to members than a volunteer. Let's assume that Districts were moving in a direction of covering their own staff wages and expenses. Some national Party functions can survive on volunteer level accountability-where if it does not happen in a timely manner, the Party will survive. However, there are other national functions that require more accountability such as financial planning and fundraising, coordinating and mapping membership and membership growth, youth work, facilitating our engagement in the ideological battle and standardizing political education, and external communications/publications.

This does not require that we have 1 paid staff person per assignment. But it is to say that these functions require a higher level of staff to member accountability to be successful. These things have to happen for the survival and well-being of the Party.

Last, we should stop excluding ourselves from the basic professional practice of drafting job descriptions for each assignment and hosting regular evaluations to assess the progress of the work. Getting back into the habit of having clear assignments that can be evaluated and adjusted is a must. This should not be seen as being overly critical of individual comrades. Rather it has to be done in the best interest and survival of the Communist Party.

TWEENERS: A Specific Approach to Our Generation

The Communist Party and Young Communist League have done a decent job of maintaining a small base of members under 30 and above 50. But what of those members in between?

These are our assumptions.

Many of these individuals are in the early stages of starting a family, and may have younger children. They are often holding one or more full time jobs or looking for full time employment. In some instances they are in graduate school or attempting to further their education and/or job training. They rarely have time for long meetings, particularly on weeknights and weekdays. In many instances, they have a stronger identity with their YCL membership than they do with the Party.

Regardless of the different reasons we might believe this generation is barely present in our organization (the 1991 split, logistical difficulty, low union density among young workers, other "objective" conditions), we must ask how do we make the Communist Party more accessible for these in be-tweeners?

This population is very important to our Party. Our survival as an organization depends on it. More youth would transition from the YCL into the Party if they saw more members from this generation present-if the transition wasn't seen as going from a very young organization to a very old one.

Outside of some of the logistical shifts we have noted above, we would like to suggest a one-time special approach to this population given their near absence. Consider having a national functionary in the organization department (paid or unpaid), who's main assignment is mobilizing this generation of the Party- organizing special caucuses and conference calls for them to mold and shape their participation and contribution to the Party based on their unique needs and experiences. The possibilities are wide open for us to strengthen our relationship with this generation. We have the space to be flexible and to take risks. And at this point, doing something is simply better than doing nothing.

THE ROLE OF THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE USA

We do not need to quote Lenin to know that if we win over the youth, we have the future. All the proof you need to fully grasp the necessity of the Young Communist League is to ask Party members, young and old, of some of their fondest memories, their early radicalization, and in many cases their gateway to the Communist Party.

As a Party, we should struggle to clarify our over all youth policy. If we as a Party do not know where we are going and how we are growing, how do we expect the YCL to have a clear sense? It will become clear how the YCL fits into the over all vision of Party building, when the Party is clear on our own vision of Party building. When there is not unity around how to build the Party, the guidance on how best to build the YCL will continue to be confusing. In which case, we cannot be critical when the youth try to figure it out on their own. All of this is evident in our discussions around the publications (does the YCL have a separate one or not), the internet (is there a YCL page), the YCL Action Plan (should their be a separate one or not) and schools (Party leaders should teach, and yet YCLers struggle to get Party leaders to teach).

Guidance from the Party is critical to the YCL. But it is an art, not a science. Guidance involves persuasion through on-going support of emerging leaders, mentorship, and political education. It does not involve bullying young comrades into to decisions and opinions in a way that does not allow them to come to a particular understanding of something on their own. The former is not only detrimental to the YCL's program, but also hinders that Party's ability to further retain these young comrades as members.

Likewise, the YCL and its leadership must remain the strongest champions of the Party to the youth generation-representing the Party's views in YCL spaces. Lots of repair is needed in this nuanced relationship.

Consider the assignment of a Party/youth liaison, an older comrade with the task of working more directly with the youth. Such a commission, when used to enhance the work of the YCL, could be a positive strategy to transition more YCLers into the Communist Party.

Imagine leading cadre of the Party being assigned to leading cadre of the YCL to mentor and groom them in our methodology. If we expect YCL leaders to play the double role of both being elected by and representing the YCL membership and representing the Party within the YCL, more direct one-on-one support is a must.

Maintaining YCL "independence" is important to us. It is true that few would argue that the YCL should be politically or ideologically independent from the Communist Party. Further, the organizational independence of the YCL has its own large limitations. The key factor has always been that the YCL have the room to come to political understandings and general decisions in its own way based on the culture and practices of the youth generation.

Thus, the YCL has always had, though in different forms at different times, its own decision-making bodies-the highest of which generally being its national convention. These bodies should continue to have the power to make their own statements, resolutions, action plans, and general mass work in close guidance with the Communist Party. We should work extra hard to maintain the integrity of this subtle division of responsibility and work between the YCL and Party leadership bodies.

All of these are potential ways we could strengthen the relationship between the YCL and the Party while at the same time strengthening the infrastructure to ultimately transition more YCLers into the Party.

GOING FORWARD FROM HERE

In closing, the purpose of this document is to spark discussion within the clubs and districts of the Communist Party USA and of the Young Communist League USA. We hope club and district leaders will go out of their way to include less active members, particularly the tweeners that have moved away from us, to come back and participate in this discussion.

Ultimately, we all want to grow into a larger more active Communist Party, with a leadership that transcends all age groups. These are tough issues that our generation will have to grapple with sooner or later. We hope this document sparks some ideas that can later be used to make progress towards this goal.

PROPOSALS

Again, we propose that the National Committee and any sub-committee of the convention responsible for updating the strategic policy add a section explicitly focused on how we should approach building the Communist Party in this period to be considered at the National Convention. In the context of this addendum, we would hope that some initial mechanisms for accountability are also included...such as a national functionary position that can bottom-line the process. It is our hope that even if such a section does not incorporate all of the ideas suggested in this document, it will include ideas that were catalyzed as a part of the discussion surrounding it.

We also propose that the national center regularly present the National Committee with a report of the Party's national membership-a state of the Communist Party in which our leaders can gain a sober and accurate assessment of the quantity and quality of our base.

Convention Discussion: Religion in the Current Period

CPUSA Religion Commission — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:02:00 -0500

This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA's 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. The Communist Party takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this article or other articles in the pre-convention discussion. All contributions must meet the guidelines for discussion. To read other contributions to this discussion, visit the site of the Pre-Convention Discussion period.

All contributions to the discussion should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection not to the individual venues.For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can email convention2010@cpusa.org.

General understandings

In the struggles of the day, the CPUSA always seeks the broadest possible unity of the working class and all its allies. This necessarily includes seeking unity of people of varying religious and philosophical outlooks.

Religious faith and religious institutions remain powerful influences in the United States today. They cannot be ignored in building an all-people's coalition for progress, not only on account of their numerical and ideological strength but also because of the positive contributions and insights that religious traditions can bring to progressive struggle.

Marxism is an open science and an open view of the world. We are convinced, of course, that Marxism provides essential understandings and insights that are of vital importance for all who struggle for a world of justice and peace. Among these are our vision of class and class struggle as an essential motor of social development and social progress, and of socialism, based on working-class political and economic power, as a necessary step forward to a new and better world. Though we hold firmly to these convictions, and to the essential role of the Communist Party in bringing these insights into the consciousness and action of our class and people, we do not imagine that either the theory of Marxism or our Party have a monopoly on the truths and understandings that will go into building a society of greater justice and equity. The various religious traditions espoused by our people can and do make important contributions to an all-around vision of a new world and a new society and to the avenues of struggles through which that goal can be attained. It is vital that our Party link itself with these progressive possibilities.

Our Party has, of course, long been clear about its support of freedom of conscience and of religion, both in the present and under socialism. And we welcome people of religious faith as members and leaders without discrimination. We believe, however, that it is time for the Party to move beyond simple tolerance to an active embrace of the progressive aspects of religious traditions and their incorporation in our vision both of present struggles and of a socialist and communist future.

Furthermore, religious institutions and communities are neither immune to nor isolated from class struggles. Faith communities often function as centers for indoctrinating and mobilizing people for either reactionary or progressive movements and goals. Over the past few decades, the role of religion in mobilizing reaction, in the form of the so-called "religious right," has been highly visible. Nonetheless, both in the present and in the history of our country (and elsewhere), religious belief and faith communities have been and are important motivators and springboards for progressive thought and action.

Communists need to be sensitive and respectful of the traditions of faith communities and learn of the riches they bring to the broader movement. To give but one example: the Scriptures revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims are permeated by stories of struggles of the oppressed. It has been justly said that Moses is the world's first documented union organizer. The prophets and Jesus unequivocally spoke for the poorer classes of their day against the ruling classes. Other religious traditions often speak in similar terms. As Marx and Engels themselves understood, precisely in the often-misread passage about religion as "the opiate of the people," religion has fundamentally expressed the aspirations of humanity for genuine freedom and a better life in this world.

All this does not negate or deny the differences between religious beliefs and various forms of materialist philosophy which may be held by members of our Party and by others. Our point here, however, is that just as religious believers and thinkers, in our Party and elsewhere, increasingly find truths and insights of fundamental value in Marxism, not only for their social outlook but also for the deepening of their understanding of faith, so may philosophical materialists who do not share religious faith find insights and understandings in religious traditions that will strengthen not only their understanding of society, but also, perhaps, their own philosophical outlook. This is not intended as a call to water down genuine differences of conviction but, in what we believe is the fundamental spirit of Marxism, to show an openness to enriching our understanding from the great variety of human experience and insight.

To take up once again a point made above: religious communities and institutions are not isolated from class struggle. Most of the people in those centers are in fact working class, and most of the remainder are from strata whose interests are clearly allied with those of our class. Nonetheless, as in most other institutions in capitalist society, religious institutions have often been dominated by representatives of the ruling class, and while the historic core message of most religious institutions is one which emphasizes social and economic justice, all too often those institutions have been used to reinforce existing unjust systems and the privileges of wealth. The working-class majority often fails to realize its potential power within these institutions and communities, as it too often does elsewhere. It must be a task of Communists who are active in faith communities to bring to people an awareness of the progressive values and potential inherent in their traditions and to lead them to turn that awareness into action that will challenge both the members and leaders of their religious communities and the larger society.

There is, then, a two-fold task of Communists in relation to people and communities of faith. It is, first, to be able to speak their language and to bring to bear the progressive insights which they can bring to the larger movement; and, second, to struggle within those communities to realize the progressive core of their respective faith traditions, and to promote participation and leadership from among working class people and others whose goals are not simply to defend the status quo, but to contribute to the struggle for a more just world. The larger movement benefits from the progressive contributions and inspiration that religious people can bring to the struggle, and communities of faith can become centers of mobilization for progress rather than reaction. Communists who are themselves people of faith are convinced that in doing this they are in fact penetrating to and acting upon the truest roots of their faiths and traditions.

The current situation

Christianity

The exploitation of religious faith for reactionary purposes has been a major factor in the past two decades. The so-called "religious right" (mostly Christian) has played a significant role in the ultra-right onslaught. At the same time, however, and partly in reaction to this assault, progressive religious forces, which have long been a part of the US political scene, have succeeded in strengthening themselves and played an ever greater role. With this last election season, these forces have come out in renewed strength and have seriously weakened the hold of the right even within communities where it once was almost unchallenged.

The most prominent of such communities is that of theologically conservative Protestantism, commonly called "evangelical." The eighties and nineties saw a systematic and coordinated politicization of this community, which is quite sizeable in our country, for right-wing purposes. While most people who consider themselves evangelicals still tend to vote Republican, in this past election the Democratic Party was able to make significant inroads in this group. Furthermore, a number of traditionally conservative leaders in the evangelical movement have called for greater attention to such progressive concerns as poverty and environmental degradation, opposing the virtually exclusive emphasis on such "social issues" as abortion and gay rights which play into the hands of the right. Such a movement could well lead to a revival of the progressive social concern which was characteristic of US evangelicalism in its nineteenth century origins. Special credit in these developments must be given to the movement around Sojourners magazine, led by Jim Wallis, which has been providing a progressive voice within the evangelical community since the 1970s. Other progressive outlets and organizations are also rooted in the US evangelical tradition.

The leadership of the so-called "mainstream" Protestant churches continue to take generally liberal to progressive positions. It is a fact, however, that the membership of these churches is generally considerably to the right of the denominational leadership and most of the clergy. Nonetheless, this membership is, in our terms, mostly working class or of strata whose interests are allied with the working class, and the liberal and progressive traditions of these bodies can be an important positive factor in working within them for progressive goals. A variety of activist and progressive groups organized on both a denominational and interdenominational basis, such as the Methodist Federation for Social Action, the Episcopal Urban Caucus, and peace fellowships in most of the major denominations, have a long and continuing history of activism, with varying success in mobilizing broader forces in the churches beyond their immediate supporters.

Over the past decade, a number of Protestant denominations, in particular the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, have been serious riven over questions involving homosexuality, giving rise to struggles that have at times dominated the attention of progressive forces within them. Although the struggle for gay rights is important and deserves full support, one unfortunate byproduct of this situation has been to divert progressive energies in these communities from other issues and struggles.

The situation in the Roman Catholic Church in this country is complex and often conflicted. This body has a long tradition of social doctrine, which despite anti-communism contains many progressive elements, and-in part because of the historically working-class membership of the US church-Catholics, including clergy and bishops, have not infrequently been strongly supportive of some labor struggles. The US bishops in the seventies authored a document on economic justice that was on the whole quite progressive, and they have taken positive stances on other issues, such as war and capital punishment. There is at present, both among the bishops and in the church as a whole, a major struggle being waged between those on the right who want to give priority to so-called "life issues," narrowly defined to focus on abortion and stem-cell research (but sometimes, rather incongruously, including the rejection of gay rights), and those who insist that a genuinely "pro-life" stance must include dealing with issues of poverty and economic justice, peace, and environmental preservation. Leading among the organized forces taking the latter position is a recently organized group called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

The Catholic constituency has historically been a mainstay of the Democratic Party, but in recent decades Republicans have made considerable inroads by exploiting the issues of abortion and gay rights. In this last election, however, despite efforts of some bishops to insist that Catholic voters should place the issue of abortion above all other concerns, Catholics voted solidly (59%) for Obama.

Judaism

The organized Jewish community in our country has a long history of progressive positions and activism on many issues. Unfortunately, the question of Zionism, and, more specifically of support for the Israeli right wing, still looms large in the Jewish community. The first intifada led to much greater openness even on the part of mainstream Jewish bodies to some critical stances toward Israeli policy, but the past decade has seen some narrowing of this opening. Nonetheless, a variety of organizations, among them Jewish Voice for Peace and Not In My Name, continue to struggle vocally and vigorously within the Jewish community for recognition of Palestinian rights and against unquestioning support for Israeli policy. Among the Jewish denominations, the Jewish Renewal movement is noteworthy for its generally progressive social and political positions as well as for its willingness to support Palestinian and Israeli peace issues. "J Street" is a new and rapidly growing organization representing a broad center of American, primarily Jewish pro-Israel opinion. Describing itself as "moderate" and both "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace", J Street is pressing for the rapid achievement of a two-state solution, and for dialogue with all the representatives of the Palestinian people. It is a growing and significant counterforce against the right-wing Zionist lobby, and could play a major role in helping to move American policy in a direction that could lead to lasting peace in Israel/Palestine.

Islam

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions, both in the USA and around the world. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates that there are approximately seven (7) million Muslims in the US, and more than 2,000 mosques. According to the U.S. State Department, by 2010 America's Muslim population is expected to surpass the Jewish population, making Islam our country's second-largest faith after Christianity. While most Muslims are immigrants, more than 20% are U.S. born, and approximately one quarter are African-Americans. There are two Muslim members of Congress - Democrats Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana. And the daughter of a retired Ford worker recently became the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan legislature. Also a Democrat, she was elected with 90% of the vote in a district with a few Arab or Muslim residents, but large African-American and Hispanic communities.

Lawyer and community activist Rashida Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants who never attended high school, becomes the first Muslim woman ever to serve in the Michigan Legislature. She said she wouldn't have run but for the repeated urging of her Jewish boss and predecessor, outgoing Democratic state Rep. Steve Tobocman.

"In my heart, I was more of a social worker than anything," said Tlaib, 32. She said her top priorities will be immigrant rights and pollution, a major issue to her constituents who are surrounded by oil refineries and factories.

The eldest of 14 children of a retired Ford Motor Co. worker and his wife, she was the first in her family to earn a high school diploma. She went on to finish college and law school while helping raise 13 siblings. Her mother was born in Beit Ur El Foka, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Her father was born in Beit Hanina, a Jerusalem suburb.

— Kalamazoo News (November 6, 2008)

Muslims in the USA are subject to a great deal of misunderstanding and discrimination. Although hate crimes against Muslims have declined slightly in the past two years, documented civil rights violations have increased, and Islamophobia is still a tool of division in the hands of the Right. There are, however, positive developments. There is a considerable level of interfaith activity with Christians and Jews, and the election of Muslims at various levels of government give successful examples of overcoming racism and Islamophobia.

Among progressive trends in the Muslim community is the organization "Muslims for Progressive Values", which just held its third national conference, and includes among its principles:

We affirm that justice and compassion should be the guiding principles for all aspects of human conduct. We repudiate militarism and violence, whether on an individual, organizational, or national level; and we support efforts for universal health care, universal public education, the protection of our environment, and the eradication of poverty around the world.

The Interfaith Youth Core is a new youth organization that was founded, and is directed, by Eboo Patel, and Indian-American Muslim. It is based in Chicago. IFYC seeks to promote good relations among youth of different religious traditions, through respect, religious pluralism, and a common struggle for social and economic change. Among its "Guiding Ideas" is the following:

One hundred years ago, the great African-American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois warned that the problem of the 20th century would be what he called "the problem of the color line." The 21st century might well be dominated by a different line, no less divisive and no less violent: the faith line. The faith line does not divide people of divergent faith traditions, or religious people from secular people. Instead, this line divides religious totalitarians from religious pluralists.

On one side of the line, religious totalitarians believe that their way of life is the only legitimate way; they convert, kill and condemn those who are different. On this side of the line stand all those religious extremists, from the KKK to the radical remnants of the Kach party in Israel, who are willing to act against others who do not fit into their restricted worldview. On the other side of the line are religious pluralists like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who believe that peaceful coexistence is possible with the willingness to invest the effort to get to know each other and come together around common goals.

Buddhism

Estimates vary widely about the number of Buddhists in the U.S., from 1 to 5 million, depending upon how "Buddhist" is defined. Within Buddhist communities a trend has emerged sometimes referred to as "Engaged Buddhism", which attempts to apply Buddhist values to larger social problems, including war and environmental concerns. The Buddhist Peace Fellowship, founded in 1976 in the USA, is perhaps the best known group within this category.

Interfaith Organizations

Worthy of particular note on the US religious scene are a number of interfaith organizations working for progressive goals. The Fellowship of Reconciliation has a history stretching back to World War I, and it supports and helps coordinate the activity of a number of peace organizations within various denominations and religious bodies. The Sojourners movement, mentioned above, has broadened from its evangelical roots to include supporters across the Christian spectrum and even beyond into other faith communities. The recently formed Network of Spiritual Progressives, founded by Jewish Renewal leader Michael Lerner, takes on a variety of issues and appears to have an appeal and openness to many religious traditions. Another new organization is the Progressive Christian Center of the South, based in Dallas, which seeks "to raise awareness about systemic injustice; and to engage in grass-roots justice efforts, especially in communities across the South." Interfaith Worker Justice, with headquarters in Chicago and active local chapters across the country, is engaged in building pro-labor activism not only in churches but also in synagogues and in the Muslim community.

There is also a growing understanding about the nature of capitalism, and how it is incompatible with the core values of many religions. Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story", makes this point as well. Moore, himself a Roman Catholic, sent an email addressed to religious Americans in October, stating,

I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus (and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha) taught.

Conclusion

Our Party has a history of working with religious activists and communities of faith. Many of our members are people who are active in religious communities, or have connections with faith-based groups. Gus Hall was a baptized Lutheran who, although he was not religious as an adult, supported close working relationships with religious communities, and spoke highly of the role played by U.S. churches in the progressive movement. The Rev. Arnold Johnson, a Methodist minister, joined the Communist Party while he was in jail during the Harlan County, Kentucky coal miners' strike, and he went on to be an outstanding leader of the Party. Paul Robeson never lost touch with his roots in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. His work combined an appreciation of scientific socialism with the spiritual dimensions of the Black Church. Robeson's funeral was held at the AME Church where his brother was the pastor. Among his pallbearers was Gil Green, a longtime leader of the CPUSA. Because of his public role, he was not in a position to publicly acknowledge his Party membership. But Robeson was a leader and Party supporter, and both a Communist and a Christian for all of his adult life, and in the best senses of both.

It has been the intention and the result of the Religion Commission that we are religiously diverse and racially diverse. We are a part of the mix of what the Party needs to be.

Religious activists, both in and outside of the Party, have played significant roles in the peace, civil rights and labor movements. Meetings of movement groups, including Party meetings, are often held in churches which are at the center of community life. There have been Passover seders hosted by Party members in Party buildings, which celebrate the liberating tradition of Exodus. Religious leaders, including many clergy, have supported the right of the Communist Party to be on the ballot in several states, and have served as Presidential electors for the Party. Many of the leaders of the American-Soviet Friendship Society were clergy. And Party members have been active in several movements that have been led by people of faith, especially in the civil rights movement, where the Southern Christian Leadership Conference played the leading role under the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our involvement with people of faith in the struggle for a better world is not new. But the times call for greater unity, and moving into new forms of struggle.

The newly-constituted Religion Commission of our Party aims to move our work with people and communities of faith to a higher level. We need to insure that the Commission includes comrades with connections to faith communities that is as broad as possible. While the leadership core of the Commission will naturally consist of Party members, we also seek to build a broader community of Party and non-Party people interested in working together on these issues. We hope to organize regional conferences and local working groups involving both Party and non-Party religious activists to build a greater working unity around issues of social and economic justice.

As religious people continue to grapple with the crises of capitalism, we know that the Party has much to offer the progressive individuals and organizations within faith communities, in both theory and practical experience. We must not be shy about showing ourselves ready to introduce the "Communist plus" to progressive people of all backgrounds and philosophical convictions. At the same time we must be open to, and learn from, the insights and experiences of faith communities.

We must take a conscious and welcoming approach to recruiting people of faith into our Party. To that end we are working on a pamphlet which will introduce our Party and its program to progressive religious people, and invite them to join. The strong progressive traditions within many faith communities in the US offer a promising basis for mobilizing not just individuals but substantial communities and institutions of faith in support of social and economic justice. Therefore the Commission should also serve as a means of assisting the work of religious comrades within their respective religious bodies and organizations. We want to share experiences, ideas and resources, and help to coordinate our efforts, with the goal of strengthening the unity of the overall movement and the effectiveness of progressive religious organizations within it.

Finally, it is our hope that the work of the Religion Commission will help to improve and build upon the relations our Party has with religious and community organizations active in the broader progressive movement. Through a better understanding of others' traditions we can find more areas of common ground, and a broader basis upon which to build a better future for our common humanity. Building relationships is essential to working together effectively, and trust is the key.

Submitted by the Religion Commission of the CPUSA
Tim Yeager, Chairperson
Rev. Pierre Williams, Secretary

Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling

Sam Webb — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:48:00 -0500

In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need.

With the scent of Massachusetts still in the air, the president reasserted his reform agenda and took the fight to the party of obstruction. In polite, nuanced but forceful terms, he chastised the Republican Party.

In powerful oratory, he challenged some of the main ideological talking points of right-wing extremism, reminded everyone that he inherited record deficits and an unprecedented economic mess, and defended the stimulus bill and other recovery measures, including, and unfortunately the unconditional bank bailouts.

One of the high points of the evening was when the president called out the right-wing (and maybe worse) dominated Supreme Court whose members were sitting directly in front of him for their recent decision saying it's OK for corporations to throw money into the election process.

One of the low points was his defense of the escalation of troops in Afghanistan and his threatening tone toward Iran and other "adversaries."

Overall, I'd say that if the leaders of the "Party of No" came into the legislative chamber last night with wind in their sails, they left with their sails trimmed and a dour look on their faces. The evening for them turned out to be a "bummer."

They had hoped to hear President Obama repeat what President Clinton said in his State of the Union address in 1994: "The era of big government is over." But the president disappointed them.

While the broad people's coalition that elected him will not, I'm sure, be entirely happy with the president's speech, all signs are that his fighting tone ("I will not quit"), his focus on the economy, his defense of democratic rights (civil, labor, women, immigrant, gay and lesbian), his insistence on financial reform, and his policy initiatives outlined in the speech, including a health care bill, will reenergize this coalition, which, as of late, has been understandably dismayed by the pace and depth of change.

But this new energy will quickly dissipate if the White House and congressional Democrats go back to ignoring the rumbling from below and bending over backwards to satisfy Republicans and conservatives in their own party.

Working people expect them to draw a line in the sand, show more partisanship, push the legislative process, and tenaciously fight for the American people. If the Republicans obstruct and filibuster so be it. At least everybody will know who is blocking legislative measures that would ease the economic crisis when they go to the polls this fall.

But as good as many parts of Obama's speech were, it didn't fully rise in substantive terms to the challenges of our times and this era. The president could have knocked the ball out of the ballpark, but he settled for less. He had a chance to make the case for deep-going political, economic and social reform, including radical reform, but he came up short of that.

His speech didn't have the programmatic depth that is objectively necessary at this moment. It took us an important step closer to solving the awful economic mess and relieving the human toll that comes with it, but only a step.

Politics is an art as well as a science. And part of that art includes knowing when to advance and when to retreat. Last night President Obama didn't retreat, but he didn't advance the people's agenda to the degree that was possible and necessary. He roused the nation, but he didn't hit the high note.

We would probably have to go back to Franklin Roosevelt to find a president who has the trust of our nation's multi-racial, multi-national, male-female, young and old working class as President Obama does.

But the people's trust has to be constantly renewed - and on the basis of practical performance, on the basis of systematically fighting for the crying needs of the American people. This president can be a transformative leader (he has that potential in my view), but only if he embraces and fights for a transformative agenda.

That agenda in a full-blown sense has yet to be articulated by him. If President Obama and the Democrats want to hail the private sector as the engine of growth, I wouldn't quibble too much as long as they recognize that the private sector at this moment (big or small business) isn't generating jobs and probably won't for a long time. In these circumstances, only direct and indirect government intervention in the form of a massive public works jobs program, infrastructure repair and renewal, aid for state and local governments, and special measures for the hardest hit communities, and especially communities of racial minorities and immigrants, stands a chance of lowering unemployment in any kind of meaningful way.

In other words, the economy still has to be re-inflated and restructured along democratic, sustainable, nonmilitary, and worker-friendly lines, but the likelihood of the private sector doing that is zero. To a degree, the president is moving in this direction, but the pace and nature of the economic reforms that he prescribes is far too limited for the scope and depth of this crisis.

One of the serious missteps that he made last night was his call for a freeze on domestic discretionary spending, beginning in 2011. Hopefully the freeze is only a political calculation to ward off the Republican wolves who accuse him of being a "spend and tax" liberal. But in any case, it comes with a price insofar as it entrenches in the public mind that deficit spending is inherently bad and that our budgetary woes are caused by "handouts" to the poor and vulnerable, especially people of color and immigrants - not to mention aid to developing countries.

This is an unmitigated falsehood that ruptures our sense of social solidarity, of connectedness to every other human being. The truth of the matter is that the current budget deficit, as the president said, began during the Bush years as a result of two wars of aggression, mammoth tax breaks to the top income tier, and a bulging military budget.

Fiscal discipline and balanced budgeting are not an article of faith that has to be adhered to no matter what the circumstances. If that were the case, the U.S. and world economy could easily have tumbled into a full-blown depression last year. Capitalism isn't a self-correcting system. Market failure and crisis are as much a reality as sustained economic growth. Vicious and reinforcing contractions of the economy can easily leave an economy stagnating at a far from optimum level or in complete ruin unless they are counteracted by aggressive government action and spending measures. The stimulus and anti-crisis measures of the Obama administration acted as a tourniquet; it stopped the hemorrhaging.

But it didn't heal the wound.

If the president looks to the Depression years he will see more than one Roosevelt. There was the Roosevelt of 1934-1936 and the Roosevelt of 1937. The 1934-1936 Roosevelt had hit a wall as far as his reform efforts were concerned and he was faced with a moment of decision as to how to proceed - should he stay the course, retreat, or enlarge his vision. He chose the latter and thus the New Deal.

Or Obama could look to the 1937 incarnation of Roosevelt who, when seeing a surge of economic activity, decided to cut back on spending and balance the budget, which, as it turned out, was exactly the wrong medicine for an economy in its early stages of recovery.

From President Obama's speech it seems like he hasn't definitively decided which Roosevelt he will emulate, although I believe he leans toward the 1934-1936 Roosevelt. Which is what we need. Admittedly a bold anti-right, anti-corporate course of action won't be easy. The opponents are many and powerful. Resist they will.

Thus to level and tilt the playing field in a progressive/radical direction, the president has to be joined, prodded, and where necessary differed with by the labor-led coalition that elected him. So far it hasn't carried its share of the load; it is not even strong and united enough to enact even the program that the president outlined last night - let alone win more fundamental reforms. Too many of us have been content to watch, offer opinions, criticize, express our frustrations, and feel disappointed in the president.

But aren't we part of the problem too, indeed a big part? An era of reform - and especially radical reforms - combines popular, sustained, and united action from below with new political openings from above. Both are necessary.

Last night the president got the ball rolling, but he didn't roll it far enough or always in the right direction. So now it's our turn to get a lot more players involved, roll the ball further and roll in the direction of economic security, equality, democracy and peace.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Sidebar Test Page

Libero Della Piana — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:00:00 -0500

Check out sidebar modules on the right:

U.S. Communists plan 29th convention, call to action

John Rummel — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:25:00 -0500

The Communist Party USA is making plans for its 29th National Convention to be held the weekend of May 21-23 at its national headquarters in New York City.

The convention takes place at what has the potential to be a turning point in the history of our nation. Whether or not that turning point is reached, and the hopes of the 2008 elections are fulfilled, will depend on the building of a broad progressive labor-led democratic movement able to defeat Republican obstructionism and the far-right forces of reaction.

Thus this cannot be an ordinary convention. The four months between now and the convention will see a flurry of activity by the party involving both discussion and action whose goal is to help build such a movement.

New technology including use of video and teleconferences will make it easier to have a very inclusive convention discussion. Not just the written word but the spoken word will be part of our pre-convention discussion, making it easier for all members and friends to participate.
The kickoff took place with a splash last Thursday, January 21, with a nationwide live streaming web presentation by the party's national chair, Sam Webb, of our main convention discussion document, "No easy road to the future - but we'll get there," followed by a lively question and answer session. The web broadcast is available at cpusa.org.
The main discussion document is a call to build a far-reaching, labor-led coalition for jobs, peace and equality, to win progressive reforms from health care to immigrant rights.

In particular it is a call to action on the economic crisis. Our pre-convention period is occurring during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and the party feels its documents and discussions must be turned into action.

Working to build the national the Jobs 4 America Now campaign being organized by labor, civil rights and democratic organizations is seen as a priority.
The document is also a call to expand the Communist Party and Young Communist League, organizations committed to building the widest possible unity for democratic and socialist change.

The next Communist Party USA live web presentation will be in February. It will feature the party's vice-chair, Jarvis Tyner, on African American equality. In March, Scott Marshal, the party's Labor Commission chair, will lead a discussion on the fight for jobs. The web events are open to all who wish to participate. Membership in the Communist Party is not a requirement.

Other discussions and documents are being prepared, such as a recent submission by our commission on religion. Discussions are also being organized throughout the country. For more information, contact cpusa@cpusa.org

In addition to workshops and plenary sessions on a range of topics, the May convention will review the party's work and policy and elect new leadership.

The convention will be an exciting affair with an evening cultural celebration and rally, greetings from elected officials, labor and other mass leaders and a multimedia celebration of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party.

Over 200 delegates and guests from Alaska to Maine and from Texas to North Dakota are expected.

Discussion documents are available on the party's web site. A printed booklet with Spanish translation will be ready by February.

Convention Discussion: International Issues & U.S. Foreign Policy

Communist Party USA — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:21:00 -0500

This document is intended to provide a framework and stimulus for the Communist Party USA preconvention discussion leading up to the May 2010 national convention. It is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of every issue and every part of the globe. The main purpose is to give a general direction and stimulate discussion on the role of the party and individual Communists in this arena of struggle. The preconvention discussion itself can provide a chance to fill in gaps and deepen our understanding of issues raised here and related ones.

Download PDF version

World realignments, shifting balance of forces

Starting in the 1970s, and accelerating in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern European socialist states, international capital led by U.S. imperialism embarked on a campaign to impose neoliberal policies at home and across the world - “free” trade which is really trade rigged in favor of the transnational corporations, privatization of the public sector to benefit transnational corporations and local oligarchies, slashing public services like education and health care, and deregulation of private sector activity, including banking and finance.

It is important to note that imperialist foreign and military policies are driven by the most powerful sectors of capitalism, including finance capital and the military-industrial-energy complex. These policies are in direct conflict with the interests of the working class worldwide.

This period also saw incredible new levels of global capitalist integration. With the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc no longer a world counterbalance to imperialism, finance capital felt free to roam the earth gobbling up resources and smashing resistance to its neoliberal policies.

In the emerging capitalist economies of Eastern Europe and in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, these policies led to massive national debt, denationalization of industries and wholesale elimination of essential social programs. The major exception was China which refused to follow the neoliberal directives of the World Bank etc. China, a socialist state and socialist-oriented economy but still a developing country, not only got through the Asian crisis relatively unharmed but also shows signs of strength in the current crisis. But many developing economies were pushed to the verge of collapse. The neoliberal policies also spurred massive new patterns of labor migration from the poor countries to the rich ones.

In Western Europe as well, leading capitalist countries adopted the same privatization and financialization policies. Now Europe, along with the U.S., is at the center of the global economic crisis, with countries like Iceland narrowly avoiding a complete economic breakdown.

Here in the U.S., neoliberal policies exacerbated the three-decade-long widening of the gap between productivity and real wages with cuts in social programs. To fill this gap, finance capital relied on and promoted expansion of consumer debt and successive speculative bubbles. The dismantling of the manufacturing base of the economy accelerated, accompanied by a ferocious attack on organized labor. Economic activity increasingly relied on consumerism, and became dominated by speculative finance schemes. These conditions led to the U.S. economic meltdown and global financial crisis of 2008-2009. This crisis has dealt a shattering blow to the standing of the U.S. economy in the world.

The discrediting of the neoliberal economic model promoted by the U.S. was accompanied by the discrediting of U.S. foreign policy leadership as a result of the disastrous failure of the aggressive militarist policies of the Bush administration, especially its invasion and occupation of Iraq. The result of these extreme neoliberal/militarist policies was a deepening of contradictions across the globe, the emergence of major challenges to U.S. imperialism from Latin America, China and elsewhere, and the precipitous fall of U.S. standing internationally.

China has emerged as a major economic world power rivaling the U.S. In addition to China, other rising economic powers include Brazil, India and Russia. Most countries in Latin America have to one degree or another rejected neoliberalism, and this next-door-neighbor region that was once a playground for U.S. imperialist exploitation has been establishing new, independent forms of economic cooperation and development. The European Union is a major economic center that is also increasingly acting independently of the U.S.

In the United Nations, the U.S. still wields power through the veto, but it no longer calls all the shots. Other countries are demanding changes to the structure of the UN and other global institutions to reflect the new world balance of forces. The UN in particular is a major arena of struggle with the potential to play an increasingly important role.

Thus U.S. imperialism is facing unprecedented challenges to the unrivaled supremacy it enjoyed for many years. It is being forced to retreat and to grapple with its diminished influence. It is facing growing pressure to restrain its use of military power, even to demilitarize, to act on climate change, to take responsibility for the deep poverty that keeps most of the world’s people earning less than $2 per day without drinkable water and farmable land, to respect the United Nations and other international bodies, and to respond to and help prevent pandemics and disasters. In other words, it is under pressure from the world community to rethink its understanding of collective and cooperative global security in a way that goes beyond prevention of terrorism and power politics.

New international challenge: global warming

A new international challenge now faces the working class and people of the United States and the world: climate change and global warming. There are struggles in almost every country of the world on this issue. Divisions have emerged between industrially developed countries and developing countries, among various sections of global capital, and within the global working class and people, over who will bear the cost of changing from a fossil-fuel-based world economy to a green-energy economy. Coal miners worry about their jobs. Developing countries worry they will pay for the destruction caused by richer, industrialized countries. Some sections of global capital that accept the science of global warming and have a self-interest in a move away from fossil fuels have clashed with “old guard” capital that reaps profits from oil, gas and coal.

Global warming and the crisis of climate change, in the context of the global economic crisis, presents an urgent new challenge to the working class and people of our country and the world, and to our party.

The facts of global warming present humanity with a timeline for action that, if not met in the short term, will bring punishing effects in the longer-term, changing life on the planet as we know it. The first victims are and will be people in the developing countries and regions who are most vulnerable to droughts, rising sea levels and other climate change impacts. But we are one planet, with a global climate and global economy, and the U.S. will likewise fall victim. This presents not only a challenge but an unprecedented new opportunity for a mass movement to reshape the U.S. and world economies to benefit the people and the planet. It will mean confronting those sections of the U.S. capitalist class that have long reaped huge profits from the fossil-fuel-based economy and that are fighting tooth and nail against any steps that would curb their power.

Obama administration and foreign policy

The global realignment of forces is connected with changing political dynamics within our own country.

The new challenges to the global dominance of U.S. finance capital have spurred varying responses from various sections of the U.S. ruling class. The ascendance of the Bush administration in 2000 put the most right-wing and militaristic elements in charge of U.S. policy. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and other subsequent attacks around the world further enabled this faction, led primarily by representatives of the military-industrial complex (military contractors, oil and energy concerns, multinational corporations with massive government contracts, etc.) to push a policy of overt confrontation internationally and extreme neoliberal policies at home.

Festering discontent over these policies in the U.S. finally boiled over in 2008, particularly in the midst of the most serious economic crisis of capitalism in many decades, and made possible the campaign and victory of Barack Obama. It represented a repudiation of these policies by a majority of Americans.

More sober-minded elements of the ruling class along with progressive forces who propelled Obama into the White House are attempting to shift U.S. foreign policy away from military confrontation and toward a greater or lesser degree of cooperation and diplomacy. But there are differences on how to do this and how far to go. At the same time, militarist sections of the ruling class and those pushing a neoliberal agenda are hard at work to regain momentum and retake control over U.S. policy. These contradictory forces are all represented within the Obama administration.

The U.S. is still in the stage that we Marxists characterize as monopoly capitalism and imperialism, but this includes different interests and trends that can shape government policies, and it matters which trend and accompanying policies become dominant as far as the interests of the masses of working people are concerned - an ultra-right policy of open military aggression or a more realistic policy away from military confrontation; an aggressively pro-monopoly neoliberal globalization agenda or a more sober-minded policy of economic cooperation. We saw this in the battle over whether or not to ally with the Soviet Union against fascism in World War II; in the struggle over whether to pursue peaceful coexistence or Cold War military confrontation; in the election struggle over Bush policy versus Obama policy. Objective processes and the shifting balance of forces change what is in the interests of U.S. monopoly capital overall, how different sectors of capital respond, and what it means for the working class and all working people.

Any gains for the more aggressively imperialist right-wing foreign policy faction undermine the progressive domestic agenda that the people’s forces hope to accomplish.

The fact that Obama set out in a fundamentally different direction from Bush by word and deed is of great significance. But regardless of what one thinks of Obama as an individual, his administration’s policies, foreign and domestic, have been and will continue to be shaped not simply by his own preferences but by objective developments, the changing world balance of forces, the political balance of forces here at home, and the results of the struggle among the contending forces within the administration itself. In some instances, such as the Afghanistan surge or phases of the Honduras crisis, more conservative forces within the administration and military/intelligence establishment seem to have wielded greater influence over the administration’s policy, while in other cases, such as initiatives on nuclear disarmament, re-engagement with the United Nations, diplomatic efforts with Iran and North Korea and pressure on Israel over settlements, more progressive or center forces appear to have had the upper hand.

This is a fluid situation. The overall trajectory of the Obama administration is in the direction of moving away from Bush aggressive superpower militarism, but its exact features, the extent to which it breaks from the imperial policies of the past half-century, are yet to be determined. It will surely depend heavily on the level of grassroots mobilization in our country pressing for progressive policies. Obama’s election created a political and democratic opening for broad forces to mobilize and push for stronger reversal of old policies that rely on military might and narrow capitalist class interests, and for more and deeper changes in a progressive direction. This new opening also manifests itself internationally, giving new momentum to movements for peace, nuclear disarmament, political and economic justice, and protecting the environment.

Key hotspots and challenges

A number of key hotspots and specific challenges play a large role in the struggle to turn our country’s foreign policy in a new and better direction. There are divisions in U.S. ruling circles over how to deal with each of these. Those divisions are reflected in the Obama administration and in Congress. The advent of the Obama presidency and Democratic control of Congress greatly expand the opportunities for popular movements to impact what kinds of policies are pursued.

Solving some of the hotspot issues, for example, Afghanistan, means a new kind of U.S. policy that defines U.S. interests in a new way. Rather than the old thinking, seeing these countries and people as pawns in a game of global power (including control of strategic resources like oil), this new foreign policy thinking will redefine U.S. national security and see primary U.S. interests in ensuring that people in these hotspot regions have enough to eat, clean water, electricity, stable livelihoods, education up to and including university, and the ability to develop their own forms of political expression and government.

A new foreign policy for a new era is required. This entails not only a retreat of U.S. imperialism, but also the projection of a new and constructive role for the U.S. government in the world arena. The idea of a positive pro-active role for the U.S. government in world affairs is a very different concept than what many of us are used to, but it is one that can and needs to be fought for and achieved. Again, the opportunities for this today are greater than they have been in some time. In this document we highlight the struggle to achieve that new kind of foreign policy with regard to Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and U.S. relationships with Iraq, Iran, Africa and our closest neighbor, Latin America - Cuba in particular. Of course there are other very important areas and potential flashpoints, including Russia, India and the Kashmir conflict, the Korean peninsula and so on.

In addition, the overall issue of demilitarizing the U.S. global “footprint” is a major one, on which there are differing forces within the Obama administration. Obama has made some initiatives to try to curb Pentagon weapons programs, but powerful entrenched interests are fighting such moves. He has also projected to the fore the issue of nuclear disarmament and made some initial strides in this direction with a new U.S.-Russia arms reduction treaty. This provides an opening for a broad disarmament movement to have an impact.

Demilitarization of our foreign policy has a focal point in Japan, where there is a big popular struggle to get rid of the massive U.S. base in Okinawa. It was a major issue in President Obama’s fall 2009 visit there.

• Afghanistan

The recently announced escalation of the U.S. military role in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate problems in Afghanistan and neighboring nuclear-armed Pakistan, and in the broader region. Ending the U.S. military role in Afghanistan and Pakistan is clearly a top issue for both its harmful political repercussions internationally and its economic and social cost at home, as well as the mounting human toll of. Afghan and U.S. dead and wounded.

Extracting the U.S. military from Afghanistan on a speedy timetable will require a workable and sustainable plan that will help the people of Afghanistan and the region to recover from more than 30 years of war, much of which has been the direct or indirect result of U.S. imperialist intervention. This will require the U.S. to turn to cooperative international economic development initiatives that make real improvements in the lives of the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and enable them to construct and expand their civil society and democratic structures.

It is the only way to prevent the Taliban and other reactionary forces from coming to power and to create a better environment for emergence of democratic forces that can replace the corrupt U.S.-imposed Karzai regime. The U.S. military presence allows the Taliban to represent itself as a fighter against foreign occupation. It’s important to remember that Taliban rule resulted in near complete decimation of civil society in Afghanistan, unspeakable atrocities were committed against progressives, ethnic minorities and others, and women were put in virtual slavery. But the Taliban are a legacy of years of U.S. intervention - they would not have existed and certainly would not have had the capacity to come to power if it weren’t for U.S. imperialism. Likewise, al Qaeda, to the extent it exists in the region, is a legacy of U.S. intervention.

Elements of a rapid, sustainable withdrawal plan will include some or all of the following: creation of a broadly representative coalition-type government; a massive international development aid plan funded through United Nations agencies and local NGOs; and an enhanced role in security, political and economic development for regional blocs involving surrounding countries with a stake in the long-term stability of Afghanistan, including China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran. As an immediate step, the U.S. can speed up its military pullout by calling on the UN and regional powers to deploy a temporary international peacekeeping force that will not include U.S. or NATO forces.

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have major positive global implications for progressive people’s movements. It will help resolve other problems, such as tensions with Iran, and remove a rallying cry of reactionary extremist groups. It will open up space for democratic struggles against reactionary regimes in the area, such as in Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have used their supposed championship of Palestinian national rights to help themselves hold onto power.

Amidst all the difficulties of the present situation, the two-state solution continues to be the only solution able to capture the support of the overwhelming majority of both the Palestinian and Israeli population, support that is essential to a viable resolution. It is the only solution that enables the Palestinian people to realize their hopes and struggle for national sovereignty, and that enables the Jewish people of Israel to preserve their sense of a predominantly Jewish state. The struggles over the identity and democratic content of each state will continue well beyond any peace agreement.

The continuation of Israeli settlement construction and expansion in the occupied West Bank, particularly in the East Jerusalem area, is the biggest obstacle to resumption of serious final-status talks. Along with that, the continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza has created an ongoing humanitarian crisis that serves to raise tensions and aggravate divisions among the Palestinian people. At the same time, rocket and other attacks on Israeli civilians by some Palestinian groups have served only to bolster Israeli warhawks.

Obama got off to a good start on the Israel-Palestine issue, but intense opposition from some ruling class sectors to any change in the traditional U.S. policy of one-sided support for Israeli government policies, and a need to deal with other major problems, particularly Afghanistan, appear to have diverted the administration’s focus, at least as of late 2009. In addition, there are undoubtedly differences within the administration over how strongly to move on this issue, and what tactics to employ, and there seems to have been some misreading of both Palestinian and Israeli popular sentiments. Nevertheless, there appears to be a significant tilt in this administration away from the one-sided “blank check for the Israeli right” policy, and a belief that settling this conflict is in U.S. interests, even from the ruling class perspective.

The parallel emergence of a pro-peace movement within the U.S. Jewish community represents an important shift in the political dynamics in our country, and it is significant that this development has been welcomed by the White House and many in Congress. That presents an enormous opportunity to finally resolve this 60-year-old conflict in a positive way.

• Iraq

Despite the much longer time frame than many in the progressive movement would like, the Obama administration continues to be on track to follow the Iraq withdrawal schedule set forth in the Status of Forces Agreement. Most U.S. forces have already retreated to their bases, and the agreement calls for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces (combat and otherwise) and the closing of all based by the end of 2011. Some in the U.S. military and others on the right (including certain elements within the Obama administration) have been pushing for long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. So far, Obama has resisted that, but a full commitment to withdrawal can only be ensured if there is a push back against these right-wing forces from below.

Within Iraq, left/progressive forces and the Iraqi labor movement are struggling to expand democratic and political rights, create new effective labor laws, and build a modern, democratic, multi-ethnic state that is able to develop Iraq free of domination by U.S. transnational corporate interests. The success of those efforts can have an important positive impact on democratic people’s movements elsewhere in the region, and in our own country. An important contribution to that struggle can be played by the AFL-CIO, which has already taken initiatives to develop links with Iraqi unions.

• Iran

The Obama administration has sought to reverse the Bush policy of confrontation with Iran and has tried to engage the Iranian government in negotiations. These must be seen as positive steps that should be encouraged and supported. They can have an enormous impact in solving other problems in the region, including Afghanistan, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

Within Iran, in the past five years, the most reactionary, militarist elements of the Revolutionary Guard have taken over many of the governmental bodies, public enterprises and even private businesses (through massive privatization campaigns). They have become a de facto parasitic capitalist class with control over much of the economy, political structures, and the military. The fraudulent elections of June 2009 were part of this realignment of forces.

This has resulted in conflicts and unrest across class lines, including among sections of the ruling capitalist class. The opposition movement that emerged during the elections was a product of these contradictions playing out in the open. The opposition is a loose multi-class coalition which includes sections of the working class, the student and women’s movements, and elements of the national bourgeoisie.

The Obama administration’s initiatives on diplomatic engagement with Iran are important, even as there are pressures in Washington to pursue a confrontational policy that could lead to military conflict. Supporting the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people against the reactionary regime is not in contradiction to supporting diplomatic openings with Iran and defusing tensions.

• Latin America

Since the election of Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela in 1999, the Latin American-Caribbean region has shown a marked leftward trend. In quick succession, left or left-center led governments have come to power in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Only the governments of Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Panama are still in rightist hands, and the Peruvian government is beleaguered by large-scale worker, peasant and indigenous mobilizations.

This movement toward the left has been made possible by a number of factors, including:

successful mass organizing and mobilization of workers, peasants, indigenous people and others against the neoliberal programs that were sharply undermining their well being,
the ability of Venezuela, working with socialist Cuba, to create alternative trade and aid formations, leading toward a bloc of nations increasingly independent of the control of U.S. imperialism,
the increasing capacity of the large and increasingly industrialized economy of Brazil to support this independent, left-trending movement, and
the alternative source of trade provided by the People’s Republic of China.

However, this leftward trend is not unstoppable, and is contested by still-powerful reactionary forces in the traditional landowning and also business, trade and banking oligarchies, the higher ranks of the officer corps and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. These sectors work closely with the right wing in the United States and U.S.-based corporations. The 2009 coup in Honduras is an example of this.

The Obama administration’s initiatives in the area started out propitiously with Obama’s refusal to interfere in the elections in El Salvador in March, positive statements during the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in April, and the removal of Bush-era restrictions on the right of Cuban Americans to visit their relatives in Cuba or send them money. The initial statements of Obama opposing the Honduras coup were also an important break from past U.S. practices.

But other steps have caused concern. These include the announcement that the U.S. military would be using seven more military bases in Colombia, with the possibility that those bases would be used to oppose left-wing governments all over the region, and the State Department’s statement that it would accept the results of Honduras elections held under the coup government. It appears the Obama administration has yet to develop a consistent approach to Latin America that decisively breaks with old superpower policies.

On Cuba, the administration appears to be proceeding cautiously. But there is growing bipartisan support for ending the ban on travel to Cuba, and on ending the economic blockade. Some of the strongest support comes from Republicans representing agricultural states who would benefit from opening up trade with Cuba. This bodes well for building a very broad U.S. movement to normalize U.S.-Cuba relations, and included in that, free the Cuban Five.

The role of the U.S. labor movement is especially important with regard to Latin America. Among other international labor initiatives, the Steelworkers union and others have been actively involved in solidarity work with Colombian trade unionists. The Steelworkers have also taken the lead in supporting Mexican mine and metal workers against attacks by the right-wing Calderon government. They and other sectors of U.S. labor have shown exemplary solidarity with members of the independent Mexican electricians’ union, SME, which is currently threatened with government-initiated dissolution. It is also encouraging that this year, the AFL-CIO came out firmly against the right-wing coup in Honduras.

• Africa

Since the collapse of the USSR and Eastern European socialism, sub-Saharan Africa has been subjected to a pitiless offensive by transnational capital, which has resulted in sharp declines in living standards in an already poor region. Increasing desertification, the massive impact of the AIDS crisis, the loss of aid from former socialist countries, and the aggressive imposition of neoliberal trade arrangements have reversed progress in many countries. This, in turn, has led to civil conflicts and massive population migrations. In several countries of the continent, the looting of national resources by transnational corporations has been accompanied by brutal military action by state and non-state actors, amounting in some cases to genocidal killings. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is currently the worst, but not the only African state subjected to these conditions. An important new development is that the ALBA group of left-led countries in Latin America has been trying to develop a cross-Atlantic trade and aid bloc that will help African countries break away from the domination of imperialism and the neoliberal model imposed by the rich capitalist countries. China is also offering alternative sources of trade and development to the nations of Africa.

The discrediting of neoliberalism and the advent of the Obama administration, with the prospect of a greater “feel” for the peoples of Africa, offers a big opportunity to push to reshape the U.S. relationship with that continent, away from treating it as an afterthought and dumping ground for often-toxic U.S. products, along with a focus on military bases and strategy (AFRICOM), toward one of mutual economic, social and cultural interests.

Peace movement and its role

The election of Barack Obama represented a repudiation by the American people of the Bush domestic and foreign policies. This victory, and in fact, the early success of Obama’s candidacy, was in no small measure due to the growing sentiments against the Iraq war and against the Bush foreign policy in general.

The election reflected a maturing of the progressive forces and grassroots coalitions in the face of the Bush administration’s extreme neoliberal policies and the crisis that resulted. Labor, and especially its organized core, helped cement the key social forces (African American, Latino, Asian and other racially and nationally oppressed communities, women and youth) into opposition to these policies and was critical to the election of Obama. The majority U.S. peace sentiment against the war in Iraq was a key element in this development.

Organized labor itself, for the first time since the 1930s, began to seriously oppose U.S. foreign policy on the war and on so-called free-trade issues while reaching out to labor around the world in search of solidarity against finance capital and the giant transnational corporations.

UFPJ and the broader U.S. peace movement played an important part in changing public attitudes toward the war and ultimately in the voters’ rejection of McCain-Palin-GOP militarism. But the election of Obama after eight years of the most right-wing and militaristic administration in recent U.S. history, combined with the impact of the deep economic crisis, created a very different political landscape that many in the progressive movement, and particularly in the peace movement, have found difficult to navigate.

Some narrow left elements within the peace movement insist on lumping the new administration in with the Bush administration, maintaining the same oppositional stance. To be sure, an important task of the peace movement remains opposing and mobilizing against policies that continue the old destructive path, such as the military escalation in Afghanistan. But failure to see the positive developments, even if small, hesitant and inconsistent, and failure to appreciate the significance of the divisions in ruling circles on foreign policy, means missing significant opportunities to build for more and deeper advances. In addition, it leads to isolation of the peace movement from the rest of the all-people’s movement particularly labor and African American, Latino and other communities.

In addition, the struggle to move our foreign policy in a progressive direction has to take into account the fact that the economic crisis is now front and center for the American people and the broad movement for change.

The challenge for the peace movement is to greatly widen its ranks and develop new alliances, especially with labor and others fighting in the arena of economic justice, so a broad popular movement emerges that calls for an end to war, a peaceful foreign policy, and the demilitarization of our economy as an integral and essential part of a “new New Deal.” The slogan “Jobs not War” has never seemed more appropriate, and can be a centerpiece of such organizing efforts.

The role of Communists and the Communist Party

In this new period, our party can play an indispensable role in helping build a broad movement, involving the core forces of the people’s movement with labor at the center, to support the Obama administration’s positive steps, defeat the far right and militarism that still maintains enormous power, build a counterweight to any tendencies to capitulate to the right, and help the Obama administration move to end Cold War policies and build multilateral international cooperation to meet the needs of the workers and ordinary people of the world.

The extent to which the Obama administration moves in that direction will depend on the extent to which the progressive electorate is expanded even beyond the movement that elected Obama. It will require a much broader education and mobilization of Americans at the grassroots, in order to finally break the grip of the ultra-right, defend positive moves by the administration, push from the bottom to expand and deepen the positive initiatives and oppose policies that serve the old neoliberal forces and their agenda.

The Communist Party and individual Communists have an important role to play in helping bring this kind of strategic and tactical thinking to the peace movement and other social movements, and in helping build the organizational capacity of a broad people’s movement for a new foreign policy, intertwined with solving the economic and jobs crises.

It’s timely for us to rethink the kinds of involvement we have on peace and foreign policy. We may be thinking too narrowly about what organizations we define as “peace” organizations and what organizations we get involved with to advance peace issues. Community groups, local unions, groups engaged in economic struggles, organizations based on communities of color, youth groups, women’s groups, environmental, gay and lesbian, and so on - aren’t all of these arenas for building peace sentiment and connecting economic, social and foreign policy issues?

The newly emerging movements around green jobs and global warming are important areas where our party and individual members can make these connections, help promote working class solidarity and social justice at home and abroad, and build unity.

At the same time, it has never been more important to strengthen international working class solidarity, building on important positive steps in this direction by the AFL-CIO and individual U.S. unions. Because of our unique international relationships and our internationalist outlook, our party and Communists in the labor movement can play a particularly important role in this area.

In the long run, our greatest contribution to international working class solidarity is to help build our Communist Party, as part of a broad and powerful working class movement in the United States.

This is one of four official discussion documents issued by the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) to engage party members, allies, friends and the public in a discussion of the issues of the day leading up to its 29th National Convention, May 21-23, 2010.

CPUSA members, bodies and collectives are encouraged to submit responses, essays, papers and other contributions to the discussion in order to help determine party policy going forward from the Convention. Submissions may be emailed to discussion2010@cpusa.org or mailed to

Convention Discussion
Communist Party USA
235 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10011

For the full Convention Discussion rules and guidelines, please visit www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-2010.

Convention Discussion: The Party Program in a Period of Transition

Communist Party USA — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:10:00 -0500

Download PDF version

The Road to Socialism USA is the basic program of the Communist Party and was adopted at the 28th National Convention in 2005. This document, which gives strategic guidance to the party, remains essentially sound but several momentous changes have happened in the economic and electoral arenas of the country and require adjustment to elements of the program.

As with previous party programs adopted by our party over the years (and by other communist parties going back to Lenin) the main intent of The Road to Socialism USA is to outline the path from the present to socialism in our country. It outlines three major stages of struggle necessary to go from here to there:

The objective of the first stage is to defeat the ultra-right political trend that is dominated by a sector of the transnational monopolies. This trend has dominated the government, political and economic life from the late 1970s until the 2008 elections. To defeat the ultra-right requires a broad alliance — an “all-people’s front” — led by the working class, the racially and nationally oppressed, women and youth (the core forces) and other social strata, political tendencies and social movements along with the temporary alliance with the more moderate sector of monopoly capitalism.

In the second stage, the aim is to radically curb the power of monopoly as a whole, by building an “anti-monopoly coalition” on an even broader scale than the all-people’s front and this time with the working class and all core forces playing an even bigger role, and without the participation of any section of the monopolies.

In the third stage, the aim is to win political power for the same constellation of class and social forces, led by the working class but on a still wider scale of participation. The aim of this stage is for the coalition led by the working class to take power and construct socialism.

The program also contains extensive discussion about the level of development of the economy and the resulting social problems, the nature and role of the working class, the class struggle and the democratic struggle, the character of “special oppression” and the resulting role of the other core forces and their alliance with labor and the whole working class, the character of each of the stages of struggle, including a substantial section on US socialism and the nature and role of the Communist Party.

Change takes place rapidly in our country. A few months after any document is adopted some details at least will have changed and be dated. The reports given at each National Committee of the Communist Party (NC) take into account major changes during the previous period. The basic document and report for a National Convention takes into account major changes since the previous convention, including projecting developments, struggles and policies for at least a couple years heading toward another convention but taking into account that the NC will be meeting regularly and updating developments along the way.

But the role and purpose of a basic party program is not to update events from convention to convention, neither is it to cover some other fixed time period. It attempts to present all the major qualitative stages of development and struggle including the struggle for socialism. It is therefore not helpful to attempt either to revise or line-by-line edit and update the program at each convention, unless we were to conclude we were wrong in our strategic analysis and policy or with respect to one of its stages, or an unexpected stage of struggle had intervened.

When the country clearly passes from one strategic stage of struggle to the next one — with different qualities — then it is useful to reexamine the Program and make major changes. A new strategic stage implies qualitative changes in most social, political and economic aspects of society that we can only dimly foresee before we are fully into that new stage. Therefore it can be important to take a new look when we are in a position to know all those new developments and assess what they mean and what adjustments and fine-tuning in strategic and tactical policy are needed.

We believe we have not yet moved from one stage to the next. Yet there are two very big unforeseen developments affecting the program.

The first development was the plunging of the US and world capitalism into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This situation has strongly impacted the lives of all working people and especially those of the most oppressed sectors of the working class and working people: the racially and nationally oppressed, youth and women. It has impacted all aspects of the economic, political, social and ideological life of our country and the entire capitalist world. How and why it took place and why it is so profound and all-encompassing is connected with the development of state monopoly capitalism in its globalization phase into a further phase of development that we have termed “financialization”, in which the financial sector has become in a new way the dominant sector of capitalism at the expense of the other sectors. Deregulation of the financial sector and its introduction of extremely risky derivatives, is also characteristic.

The second development, of course, is the major defeat suffered by the ultra-right in the election of the first African American President, Barack Obama, and in the election of a Democratic Congress. This victory demonstrated that masses of white working people could be won to vote their own self-interest and reject racism. The Obama Administration with the support of all the core forces and especially the organized labor movement, and many other allies has made some progress on almost every front to push back the wreckage of the years of domination by the ultra-right and begun to move forward in a progressive direction, but not as much as many had hoped.

This represents the beginning of the transition from the strategic stage of defeating the ultra-right (which remains far from fully defeated) into the stage of radically curbing the power of the monopolies as a whole, which has only begun. When the country decisively defeats the ultra right and fully enters the anti-monopoly struggle, the movements will have a new main opponent in the struggle and need for an even stronger, wider, more active strategic alliance starting with the working class and labor and the other core forces.

Being in a transitional period means there are new potentialities for advance and new risks and difficulties requiring holding fast to our strategic policy and taking into account the nature of such a transition, its requirements and tactics. Many of the struggles, demands and tactics of the transitional period will continue to be characterized by the anti-right stage even as new struggles, demands and even victories will emerge that are of a more anti-monopoly character. Our basic document for the convention and especially the report to the convention undoubtedly seek to address these questions.

During a transitional period there is always a danger of falling back into a previous stage of struggle because of setbacks or a slipping of the balance of forces away from the working class and people. We face that danger today. We should be careful not to too hastily drop the need for unity against the ultra-right as our main guiding strategy even as opportunities for anti-monopoly struggles arise. Our main goal is to help maintain the unity and strength of the all-people’s coalition against the ultra-right, as the movements mature, develop and grow, laying the basis for more advanced demands and eventually for fully challenging monopoly as a whole. A more precise statement of the primary opponents during the transition period is needed.

It would be useful to include an supplement to The Road to Socialism USA that would deal with these two major developments — the economic crisis and the transition from the ultra-right stage to the anti-monopoly stage through the Obama Administration and the strategic forces discussed.

If the Convention Program Committee and the Convention agree to the above approach, we propose that the incoming NC establish a committee to write such an supplement for its addition to the Program.

Convention Discussion: New Opportunities to Grow the Communist Party

Communist Party USA — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:05:00 -0500

This document is meant to provide a framework to stimulate discussion and action during the pre-convention period, to help us think boldly and freshly on growing the Party, YCL and People’s World/Mundo Popular, Political Affairs and Dynamic given the changing political landscape.

Download PDF version

Introduction

The CPUSA and YCL are necessary and indispensable organizations to the US working class and people, for their economic and social advancement and eventual attainment of socialism.

The 90-year history of the CPUSA and 85-year history of the YCL attest to this. Despite ruling class efforts, Communists are integral to the political, social and cultural fabric of our country. We have a great tradition of being on the political cutting edge and making invaluable contributions to the fight for unity, equality, democracy, worker rights, international solidarity, peace and socialism.

Also indispensable to the working class and people’s movement is the People’s World/Mundo Popular, which celebrates 86 years as a ground breaking Marxist news and opinion source. The PW/MP has launched a new era of multi-media online bi-lingual Marxist working class journalist activism. The PW/MP’s stature is growing among labor, civil rights, peace and environmental and other movements.

The Party and YCL have changed and grown since the last National Convention, adjusted our strategic outlook, refined tactics, deepened activity, expanded relations, struggled to overcome sectarianism and deepen our understanding of our role, our vision of Socialism USA and path to it.

But we’re still hampered by ideas and ways of working ill fitted for the new times, which prevent us from being more effective, moving forward and growing faster.

Role of the CPUSA

We are a vital part of the labor-led all people’s movement and share the aspirations and love of country of the US people. We’re engaged in the immediate struggles, the Obama legislative agenda and efforts to define the direction of the administration, the reform process and consolidation of the 2008 election defeat of the ultra right.

But the Party and YCL are also unique because of our ability to see the bigger picture, project a strategic outlook, assess the balance of class and social forces, identify the stages of struggle and the necessary forces that must be assembled to advance the entire struggle forward and help unfold the tactics to do it.

The Party and YCL bring the most developed vision of socialism for the US reality and the democratic path there, beginning with the fight to extend and deepen any reforms in an anti-monopoly direction.

We’re part of building social movements especially at the grassroots, the organizations of the working class and core forces and bringing them to leadership at every level. We’re part of building unity of the all people’s coalition, which elected Obama, strengthening the influence of the working class and core forces within it and deepening working class, left and socialist consciousness.

Role of the YCL

The young generation is part of the core forces along with the working class, the African American, Latino and other nationally and racially oppressed communities and women. The YCL is an integral part of youth and student movement, the young generation overall, and the all people’s coalition.

However, the YCL also has a special role to play building unity among the young generation and with the core forces. This is a responsibility of both the YCL and Party.

The YCL is a schoolhouse of struggle and learning Marxism, developing socialist consciousness and lifelong working class partisans among youth and new members to the Party.

The shifts in thinking of the young generation shaped by their material reality, their greater openness to progressive and socialist ideas means it is possible for the YCL to grow faster than the Party.

Urgent necessity to grow — every member’s responsibility

The process of growing the movements includes simultaneously growing the CPUSA and YCL. This gives meaning to Marx and Engel’s phrase in the Communist Manifesto about the role of communists, “in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.”

Growing the CPUSA and YCL are necessary to moving to more advanced stages of struggle on the road to socialism. Each stage is more complex requiring a bigger more politically seasoned and influential CPUSA and YCL. Navigating the path to working class power and constructing socialism is not possible without a mass communist party.

We are not engaged in effective communist mass work unless each member also builds the Party, YCL and our publications in those movements. We need an atmosphere where every member sees this as an urgent necessity and a primary political task along side building the movements. We need an atmosphere were every member is confident and excited this can be done.

New conditions, new opportunities to grow

The work of the Party and YCL unfolds as we enter a political transition period, as the working class and core forces struggle to consolidate the defeat of the ultra right, define the direction of the Obama administration and during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. This new era offers great challenges to our leadership at every level.

This period provides the most favorable atmosphere for our ideas and potential for growth in 40 years. The thinking of millions is undergoing dramatic shifts including deepening anti-corporate sentiments illustrated by the popularity of Michael Moore‘s new movie, “Capitalism: a love story.” The economic crisis has shaken confidence in capitalism and its ability to provide a decent life and future. While it is still a powerful and dangerous force, many of the ideas of the extreme right wing have been discredited.

A recent Rasmussen Poll revealed 20% of the American people (perhaps 50 million) think socialism is a superior system to capitalism, another 27% aren’t sure which is better and 45% of youth think socialism offers a better future.

We need an accurate estimate of the influence of anti-communism. What effect do the virulent right wing attacks on Obama using anti-communism have on political discourse and the administration’s ability to advance a reform agenda? What effect did anti-communism have on the narrow loss of Rick Nagin who still got 46% of the vote in his campaign for Cleveland city council?

There is also a growing interest in what the CPUSA and YCL have to say, including recent media and campus appearances, interest in our publications, openness to participation in coalitions, conferences, etc.

Our challenge is to convey in a popular way our vision of “Bill of Rights” socialism to the American people, and especially the 20% who think socialism is superior. Our challenge is to help foster a wider discussion of socialism for the US reality and how to get there.

Growing a 21st Century CPUSA and YCL

Our challenge is to build a modern 21st century revolutionary working class party, an outlook based on scientific socialism and rooted in the multi racial working class and core forces reflecting the best of US democratic and revolutionary traditions; that utilizes modern means of communication and organizing.

We are in the midst of an exciting transition to move our work online, to base our Party and YCL on the Internet. The revolution in mass communications, the Internet and social networking is transforming all organizations, political and electoral campaign and movements and their ability to share their ideas, mobilize people and raise money, including at the grassroots. It is revolutionizing how we function, engage our members and the American people.

Youth are especially being shaped by this new reality. They have entirely new ways of engaging one another, organization and involvement. A substantial section of new Party and YCL members joined on line and the new means of communication are second nature to them.

The new mass communications are developing with blinding speed and allow us to speak to and interact with millions. The means of communications are being democratized in a way that makes it possible to communicate with large numbers relatively inexpensively. It allows us to more effectively engage in the “battle of ideas” with the corporate mass media in real time.

The decision to fully go online with the People’s World/Mundo Popular, Political Affairs and Dynamic reflects our grasp of this revolution. We are taking steps to restructure work at all levels; develop a new culture so the entire membership masters the new forms of communications, engagement and interaction.

The new forms of communication do not replace face-to-face contact. They are the most advanced organizing and communication tools at our disposal. They actually enhance face-to-face work, lead to greater human interaction, community building and visa versa.

The new tools empower individual members, amplify their voice and allow for greater initiative and action. Every member and club can analyze and report on local political developments using the multi-media tools for the PW/MP and other social networking sites sharing them instantly with thousands.

It allows every club to build a grassroots constituency – assembling email lists that can grow into hundreds, developing community rooted web, Facebook and Myspace pages, twitter accounts, online radio shows, etc. Our clubs and members can interact with hundreds at little cost.

People’s World/Mundo Popular

The PW/MP is a voice and mobilizing tool of the working class and core forces, of the labor led people‘s coalition, especially its grassroots expression. It is also the voice of the Party and YCL, our primary relationship builder, the central mobilizing, organizing and educating tool, updating Lenin’s idea in the age of the Internet revolution.

The Internet unites the work of the Party and PW/MP with the broad movement. The new web tools help us influence and engage at the grassroots on a daily basis in the “battle of ideas.“

We have a powerful tool in the Spanish language Mundo Popular. It is unique to our country and expands our reach and influence.

Where possible, districts should establish Bureaus, or groups of party and non-party writers and videographers for the PW/NM who will cover local developments. Where feasible, local print editions may help in developing “face to face” contact aiding in recruitment, activity and sustainability of membership. An ongoing challenge is to transition to online work, including ensuring every reader and former subscriber to the PW/MP print edition is getting the daily email alerts.

Political Affairs

Important, meaningful changes in our country’s politics under Obama today suggest a greater, not lesser, need for rigorous but popular theoretical work. Fundamental questions about our strategic policy, tactics and relationship to others are ongoing subjects for analysis. In addition, discussion and analysis of the current stage of capitalism, the class nature of contemporary issues from health care to climate change, developments on the struggle against racism, women’s and LGBT equality and other central democratic questions remain vital to PA’s work.

When PA made the transition to online publishing only, PA stated its main goal was to develop a broad community of Marxist ideas online, using new information technologies to build that community. PA also has an important role to play in the educational life of the Party and YCL.

Rooting the Party and YCL in action; taking steps to grow

If what we say is true and we are in the mist of a new wave of political activism not seen in 40 years, of a new interest in socialist ideas, if we have great politics, the best understanding of strategy and tactics; then why haven’t we grown significantly membership wise?

There is no reason why every club cannot at minimum experience incremental growth among family, friends and co-workers. If sustained, such growth will transform the Party and YCL. And is it possible, that instead of incremental growth, we could be experiencing far faster growth? What’s holding up people from joining? What are objective factors including the level of the class struggle, the relationship of the Party to it and our ties to the grassroots?

Have we fully overcome the “mentality of marginalization”? Are we hampered by sectarianism? Do we take advantage of open doors and are we swimming with broad class and social currents?

And what are subjective factors in people’s consciousness, including the influence of anti-communism both in the movement and on us? What is the level of the radicalization process and is it sufficient at this stage for a mass CPUSA and YCL?

What ideological and political obstacles are there in the thinking of our members that prevent recruitment? What is the level of understanding in the Party and YCL of our necessity and special role?

This should be the starting point for a frank and honest discussion on each district’s approach to recruitment and member retention, which should result in moving it higher on everyone’s priority list.

Good political work will not automatically result in growth and recruitment. It requires our actions and initiatives in political, economic and theoretical struggles be coupled with a clear methodology on recruitment based on each district and club’s reality.

Party and YCL growth takes day-to-day focus and concrete steps. There are neither blueprints nor “get rich quick schemes.” But we can’t simply repeat the same practices, which have yielded little if any growth and anticipate different results. It means “thinking outside the box,” with new ideas and approaches and sharing best practices.

Our aim is to give special attention to growing among the working class, African American, Latino and other communities of color, women and youth. Our work must be rooted here, engaged with people in struggle, around their daily concerns.

How well connected to everyday struggles, especially the economic crisis, are our clubs? How connected are we to the main activists and organizations?

Our clubs must be in the forefront of action and initiative on the economic crisis, rooted in struggles for jobs and immediate relief, health care, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, greening and demilitarizing our economy, passage of financial and immigration reform, and EFCA.

We must respond to the everyday needs of communities, workplaces and campuses and what others are prepared to struggle on: helping initiate action with neighbors on home foreclosures, food banks, shelters, keeping open schools, libraries, etc.

It means being grounded in the coalitions around the 2010 elections to defeat attempts by the ultra right to regain power and help shift the legislative balance of forces in a more progressive direction.

Grassroots centers of action, unity, education, social solidarity and culture

Joining the CPUSA and YCL are not points of entry, but points of destination. Our first objective has to be to multiply the number and variety of relationships with activists around us. We need to allow others to develop a “comfort” level with us, provide space to break down barriers, fears and misconceptions and for working closely together.

The primary place for this is in struggle and coalition. But there are also temporary or transition forms that allow others to become familiar with us: readers and writers for our publications, political and social events, Marxist study groups, individual meetings, etc. Multiple forms are needed because many clubs are weak, isolated, function inconsistently and not yet inspiring places to bring interested people to.

If anything the fight over health care reform has taught us the balance of forces needs to be strengthened in favor of the working class, especially at the grassroots. This underscores the need for political grassroots centers or action, that can engage and help organize millions.

We have a variety of valuable club experiences and its fair to say there are no models. The grassroots club, at its best with a neighborhood or workplace focus makes a real difference in the lives of people. It is a learning center for applying necessary tactics to implement our unity strategy and a place to draw lessons from the implementation of education on the issues.

As the right wing becomes more desperate it resorts to fear, to the “big lie,” and seeks to divide the labor led people’s coalition (e.g., the costs of the public option). Being able to reach out to the club constituency with a working class analysis is critical to waging the “battle of ideas” at the grassroots.

Grassroots club participation in mass struggle provides strength to those in the labor led people’s movement fighting for unity. Although many will agree with the need for unity, our experience shows certain situations may force specific elements to move away from unity for their own particular interest.

The ability of the neighborhood club to work through these problems on the local level and to spread this to its broader constituency can be decisive. Door to door neighborhood work is a method of knowing the problems in the neighborhood or shop and responding with voter registration, get out the vote, mobilization on issues and the ability to make the difference in a close election or field a candidate.

Clubs are centers for building electoral coalitions. Voting blocs formed by the concentration club, events that focus on unity sponsored by a large grass roots club or districts that have won the respect of many elements of the labor led people’s coalition through the clubs physical presence at particular actions of these different elements can be a force for unity.

A club that insures that its members attend actions sponsored by a broad array of the labor led people’s coalition can win the confidence of many that could in turn help in questions of unity.

Our clubs should be the “destination” for those who seek higher levels of commitment in the struggle. They provide a context for their education, action and social solidarity needs. These comrades focused on unity in the struggle are not only needed by the party but by the broader movement as well.

Thinking outside the box

In developing plans to grow each district should determine its strengths including membership talents, interest, where comrades are active and their circles of influence. It’s especially important to get to know and socialize with the new members, and find out how they see making a contribution to our work.

To fully take advantage of our new environment we have to not only think outside the box with fresh ideas, but to test them.

We can’t be locked into the way we’ve done things, especially given the communications revolution, which is changing how people engage and interact. We can’t try to artificially fit people into our model, nor “fit round pegs in square holes.” We should adapt ourselves to the developing broad social practice and today’s realities of working class life.

We need to find new forms that promote member (and non-member) participation and inclusion, and encourage and promote their ideas and initiatives. We should consider creating transition forms that promote involvement based on task, issue and interest.

Here are some key areas of emphasis:

Education - essential to long term recruitment and retention:
- Study groups, classes, and seminars (at local homes or centers)
More public Party/YCL events:
- Find fresh new ways to present our message and ourselves.
- Emphasize what we are for and less of what we are against.
More actions - political and cultural:
- Form structures that promote action and engage people with a variety of interests and levels of understanding, i.e. healthcare reform committee, progressive artist collective, poetry slams, mural art projects.
- These collectives should primarily be based on local membership’ talents and interest
Explore and master the use of the Internet and social media:
- Find new ways to express our vision and our ideas using the Internet
- Develop local video collectives
- Develop online clubs and utilize social

Questions that should be asked when developing projects or activities:

Will this activity bring in new people other than our usual circle of supporters?
Does this activity encourage people to get involved? i.e. sign a petition attend city council or meet with a congressperson, write a letter to the editor, etc.
Does it motivate people to come back and bring a friend?
Does it raise consciousness? CPUSA and YCL united in action and ideology

Unity of ideology and action between the CPUSA and the YCL packs power and helps grow both. The Party and YCL need to do everything to strengthen unity and be the “champion of each other’s cause.”

The Party needs to take special steps to help build the YCL. The Party can’t assume just because there are YCLers in its area or an YCL club exists, it can do without attention and political mentoring, concern about the personal lives and the political and educational development of young comrades. The YCL needs hands on attention.

Direct contact by the Party with YCLers will lead to higher membership retention. This illustrates the special responsibility of the districts and clubs to foster ways where the YCL membership and Party can work jointly together around political struggle and organizational events. We should participate in actvities where we are seen together.

There needs to be much more engagement and a back and forth relationship. The YCL brings fresh approaches and new ways of doing things, which the Party can learn a lot from. And the YCL can learn from the political, strategic and tactical experience of the Party, as well as the treasure house of Marxism.

Organizing educational opportunities with the YCL are urgently needed. Youth are hungry to learn, especially Marxism, to discuss socialism and the path to it.

At the national level, steps need to be taken as finances permit, to reestablish a full time YCL staff. YCL leaders should continue to be part of national policy discussions and the Party should invite YCL party members to be part of leadership collectives at all levels.

At the local level, each functioning Party district should assign a solid comrade to serve as advisor or mentor to local YCL group. Party members should be a political and organizational resource for the YCL.

Conclusion

The period ahead should challenge us to think and act boldly, tap changing popular attitudes, stretch our imagination and test new ways to working. It can be a period of rich experience in growing our Party, YCL, People’s World/Mundo Popular, PA, Dynamic and the movements for change.

Main Convention Discussion Document: U.S. Politics at a Transition Point

Communist Party USA — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:56:00 -0500

Download PDF version

Slightly over a year ago, the American people elected a young African American to the presidency and increased the Democratic majority in the Congress. President Obama’s victory represented a repudiation of right-wing ideology, politics and economics and a setback for neoliberalism in both its conservative and liberal skins.

This victory was a long time in coming. When it finally happened it did so not only because of the brilliance of the candidate, but also due to the broad shoulders of a people’s coalition.

The swing in the political pendulum ushered in the possibility of a new era. After 30 years of right-wing dominance, the balance of political power tilted once again in a progressive direction.

Though that tilt wasn’t far enough for a people’s agenda to be easily enacted, political advantage did shift, and that’s no small accomplishment.

Perhaps it is obvious, but if McCain and Palin had been elected, a public option would not be in the center of the conversation — in fact, health care reform wouldn’t even be on the agenda. The Employee Free Choice Act would be off labor’s wish list. The stimulus package would be far smaller and unemployment much higher. There would not be a Puerto Rican woman on the Supreme Court. Our government would be actively supporting the coup regime in Honduras, and relations with Cuba would be frozen or worse. Legislation extending hate crimes to include anti-gay violence would still be on the “to do” list. And not a word would have been said about the abolition of nuclear weapons.

In short, President Obama’s election has made a difference, and the progressive movement has space to dream again. There are limits and obstacles to be sure, but our outlook should be framed by hope and possibility. The great reformer of the 20th century, Rev. Martin Luther King, taught us this lesson.

The purpose of this discussion paper is to assess where the country and world are a year after the election, refine our strategic and tactical policies, outline some practical actions, and discuss our role in a very complex situation.

World setting

The world, it is generally acknowledged, has been torn loose from the old moorings that for decades structured life for billions of people.

This unhinging began with the Volcker “shock” in 1979 (when Federal Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volcker lifted interest rates to nearly 20 per cent), the election of Reagan a year later, and the meltdown of the Soviet Union at decade’s end. It reached a new stage with the rise of China, India, and Brazil, the resurgence of Russia, the social transformations in Venezuela and other Latin American countries, the Iraq war, and the recent world financial and economic crisis.

At the time of the Soviet collapse, the defenders of U.S. imperialism declared that U.S. imperial power was preeminent and would remain so far into the 21st century. But obviously they badly misread the tea leaves. Though still dominant, the scope of U.S. power is narrowing and a multi-polar world is taking shape.

It is easy to imagine China rivaling the U.S. on the world scene. A civilizational “re-centering” from Europe and America to Asia, with all its implications, isn’t out of the question either.

This transitional period, some theorists of international relations say, will bring instability, even chaos, and we should not dismiss this out of hand. In earlier periods, conflict, crisis, and war scarred the landscape as once dominant states declined and new ambitious rivals sought to take their place. Such rivalry turned the first half of the 20th century into a bloody and barbaric era.

At the same time, the past doesn’t have to be prelude to the future. People and nations do learn. Historical memory can be a force for progress. The vast majority of humankind strongly desires an easing of tensions, an end to violence, and the normalization of international relations.

They want dialogue, negotiation, and a cooperative effort to address climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, finite natural resources, swelling poverty and disease, and broad-based and sustainable economic growth.

All of these challenges require collective action. The global clock is ticking.

While rivalry between states — especially in a multi-polar world — is built into the world system, the appetite and ambition of U.S. imperialism constitutes the main obstacle to cooperation, peace, and equality.

A less malleable world

U.S. imperialism so far has been reluctant to yield ground to subordinate classes, nations, and regions entwined in the global world order. But reluctance is one thing; capacity to enforce your will is another.

It doesn’t have the same reserves and legitimacy as it had in the second half of the 20th century, its global power is far more circumscribed and collective resistance to the re-imposition of old imperial relationships, dressed in new forms, comes from many different quarters, including from the American people. Hundreds of millions are insisting that the new century not be a rerun of the second half of the old, in which a single country and its allies largely determined the path of global political and economic development. Such a path was unjust, unsustainable, and unacceptable then and is more so now. The world is far less malleable to the architects of imperial rule.

The current worldwide economic crisis has reinforced these sentiments. The turn to neoliberalism, financialization, and hyper globalization three decades ago brought on financial and economic ruin on a world scale and originated, it is commonly understood, on Wall Street and in Washington.

This has amplified the insistence of people worldwide that a new economic order be constructed — shorn of U.S. dominance. Not everybody is having it, especially in the seats of imperial power. Some want to reconstruct the old order, while some others are for minor changes that would not undercut in any significant way the dominant position of the U.S.

The outcome of this struggle is still to be decided. And like everything else, it will be determined as much by human actions as by the evolution of broader objective processes.

And given the immediacy of global challenges, history has to be speeded up. This is where humankind again comes in.

Foreign policy

President Obama is resetting U.S. foreign policy. In a series of speeches, he has accented human solidarity, diplomacy, cooperation, and peaceful settlement of contentious issues. In nearly every region of the world, he is engaging with states that during the Bush years were considered mortal enemies — Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and others.

In Latin America, he expressed a readiness to put relations on a different footing. In a historic speech in Prague, he voiced his wish to reduce and ultimately abolish nuclear weapons. And in an unprecedented address in Cairo he indicated his eagerness to reset relations with the Muslim world, sit down with the Iranian government, and press for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

No small achievements! What the president has said (and done) so far constitutes a turn from the policies of the previous administration and an acknowledgement that the U.S. has to adapt to new world realities and challenges. And he does so with support of some (more sober and realistic minded) sections of the ruling class. At the same time, neither is ready at this point to give up U.S. global primacy — top dog status.

Adjustments in policy are not the same as a change of policy. And yet, it would be a serious mistake to dismiss or “damn with faint praise” the new approaches of the president.

For the president’s new approaches can make a difference in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. They also create a better political environment for the progressive and anti-imperialist movements to press for a new foreign policy.

That there are inconsistencies and contradictions in words and deeds of the president and others in his administration — on policy towards Cuba, Honduras, Afghanistan, Iran, the fight against terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. — comes as no surprise. Setting aside the inclinations of the administration, the opposition to any substantive change in foreign policy is enormously powerful and includes core sections of transnational corporate capital, the military-industrial and energy complexes, the Pentagon, right-wing extremists, the foreign policy lobbies, other institutions of the national security state, and not least, players within the Obama administration itself.

Motivated by geoeconomic and geopolitical objectives and a determination to maintain U.S. global primacy in some form, they couch their actions in the language of democracy, humanitarianism, national security, and anti-terrorism.

Terrorism is an undeniable danger and deserves a collective, proportionate, and many layered response, but it shouldn’t be turned into a rationalization for the protection and expansion of U.S. imperialist interests.

U.S. foreign policy is not solely decided in elite circles, however. The American people and people worldwide are in the larger vector of struggle that determines our place and actions in the world.

An immediate task is to resolve the highly combustible trouble spots mentioned above in a peaceful, democratic, and just way, thereby easing tensions and weakening the hand of imperialism and political reaction worldwide.

The new normal

Of the factors shaping class and democratic struggles in our land, none looms larger than the economy. So what are some of its main features and dynamics?

Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase are back to the “old normal.” Profits are soaring — $3.2 billion and $3.6 billion respectively in the third quarter. Bonuses of $23 billion are in the pipeline for their managers and traders. Their field of competitors has thinned. And these leeches have morphed from “too big to fail” to “much too big to fail.”

In other words, the main engineer of the economic meltdown — finance capital, a.k.a. Wall Street — has reconstituted itself in slightly different form and is back to its old parasitic and destabilizing tricks.

In the meantime, the rest of us are living in the “new normal.” Let me explain.

A year ago the old model of capitalist accumulation (profit making) and right-wing political governance, resting on the rise of finance, mountains of debt, record levels of inequality, unsustainable global economic imbalances, successive bubbles in real and fictitious assets, and the unrestrained use of military power came crashing down.

The U.S. economy and its financial system imploded, throwing people out of their jobs and homes, closing family farms, evaporating pension funds and savings, freezing credit lines, shuttering plants and factories, devastating cities and towns, and much more.

Much the same occurred elsewhere in the world, as the global economy, integrated in a thousand ways, wobbled and then went into a nosedive.

A complete collapse was dodged, thanks to swift government action, but the crisis was the worst since the Great Depression and isn’t over yet.

Reliable sources forecast unemployment climbing to nearly 11 percent officially and nearly 20 percent unofficially, while foreclosures, poverty, and other indicators of the crisis of everyday living continue upward.

The prospects for a quick and robust recovery seem dim. Some economists, including mainstream thinkers, argue that economic stagnation is just as likely, with the economy operating at sub-normal levels in terms of growth, capacity/plant utilization, employment, and income for an extended period of time. Even a new dip downward — “a double dip” — can’t be ruled out, they say.

In the “new normal” universe, the economy is not self-correcting. There is no automatic and seamless return to a path of vibrant and balanced long-term growth. Many of the imbalances and contractions that metastasized in the crisis phase of the cycle continue in the depression and recovery phase at a national and global level.

On the one hand, because of the economic crisis (clearing out of uncompetitive businesses, plentiful unemployed wage labor, the cheapening of the price of labor power, rising productivity, low interest rates, and the further concentration and centralization of corporate power), conditions for a fresh round of profit making and economic growth on the supply side of the accumulation process (the process by which capital is constantly expanded in successive rounds of the production process) are favorable.

On the other hand, conditions on the demand side of the process are far less promising:

An export-led recovery is very problematic, even with the fall in the dollar and rising economic activity in other regions of the world. China, for instance, is growing again, but doesn’t have the capacity or inclination to act as the buyer of last resort (like the U.S. did in the 1990s and up until the recent crisis).
Political and budgetary constraints rule out greatly increased military spending — the favorite counter-cyclical tool of Reagan, Bush, and the extreme right — as an option.
Bubbles and asset inflation — stocks, housing, (private sector Keynesianism, to use a term of Robert Brenner) are a tough sell.
The evaporation of wealth during the downturn coupled with the pile of consumer debt in the previous cycle makes a consumer-led recovery virtually impossible.
Layoffs continue to climb, while wages implode and employers are very reluctant to add to their workforces, preferring instead to send work overseas, install labor-saving technologies, and reorganize and speed up the labor process.
Private investment in plant and equipment is sluggish and appears likely to remain so; and there is no new investment frontier on the horizon, at least as long as capital is in the driver’s seat.
Housing construction, which traditionally leads economic recoveries, is stalled. Rather than absorbing capital in the form of new housing units, the housing market is destroying capital as prices continue to fall and homeowners go into foreclosure.
The financial system is loaded with debt, thus making banking and credit crises a possibility in the future.

Yes, it is a dire situation. What can be done?

The answer is simple: government direct and indirect democratic intervention to re-inflate and reconfigure the economy.

Of course, objections will be raised, especially by the right wing and entrenched corporate interests. An obvious one is that the federal deficit is already out of control now. Another is that a new stimulus bill would result in a dangerous round of inflation. Still another objection is that our tradition is to favor “free” markets, with the public sector operating only on the margins of the economy. A fourth would be that public capital would crowd out private capital, thereby slowing growth and causing inefficiency. Finally, it will be said that such an expansion of the government’s role will create a vast new bureaucracy.

These charges have to be taken seriously and persuasively answered because the bottom line is this: only a radical democratic government intervention to stimulate and radically restructure the economy can lift the working class and nation out of the present and persistent economic morass.

The elements of such an intervention could include:

Assist democratically elected municipal and regional authorities to plan and organize major projects;
Channel investment dollars to small and medium sized businesses, worker/community cooperatives, and broke state and local governments;
Adopt an industrial policy that renews the manufacturing sector;
De-militarize and convert to peacetime production;
Facilitate the formation of cooperatively owned enterprise, such as the steelworkers are currently exploring;
Initiate massive public works jobs for infrastructure development, environmental cleanup, and green industries, ranging from power turbines to windmills to non-polluting public transportation systems;
Democratize the Federal Reserve System;
Insist on the passage of EFCA and other legislation to enhance the rights and conditions of workers and communities;
Review trade pacts, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and others;
Restructure global economic institutions and/or construct new ones that take into account new economic and political circumstances on a global level;
Reduce the work day with no cut in pay; raise the minimum wage; and apply robust affirmative action hiring guidelines;
Tax capital movements, especially short term movements that are so destabilizing to the economies of many countries;
Shift taxes to the wealthiest individuals and corporations;
Reform the financial sector and turn the “too big to fail” banks into public utilities under democratic control. While many of the regulatory proposals already under consideration are positive, some of the sticky issues — democratic control over the Federal Reserve Bank, the hyper concentration of the banking system, the future of hedge funds and equity firms, the loopholes in derivative trading, etc. — are not part of the conversation.

The likelihood of passage of the above measures has little to do with their practicality, but instead hinges on the ability of working people and their allies to frame the national conversation and win active popular majorities for them.

In the 1930s, the Great Depression convinced millions of people that the old model of unrestrained capitalism was bankrupt. But it was only in the course of fierce battles that significant democratic reforms were passed.

As a result, a new set of institutions, rules, and legislation — a new model of governance, the New Deal — took deep root in our nation’s political economy and psychology.

What was missing, however, was an adequate stimulus to revive the economy. The Roosevelt administration was going in that direction, but under pressure changed course in the name of budget balancing and the economic recovery stalled. And it wasn’t until the war mobilization that included government borrowing, industrial conversion, and national planning that the economy fully recovered and a sustained expansion, lasting for roughly three decades, began.

Much the same combination of restructuring and re-inflating the economy, albeit in very different circumstances, is necessary again. So far the administration has junked some of the economic assumptions and practices of neoliberalism, but, as mentioned earlier, a full recovery and sustained growth could be an elusive goal.

In any event, the struggle for radical reforms and a new model of governance is imperative. While neither will resolve capitalism’s contradictions and crisis tendencies, it is possible to improve — even greatly improve — the conditions of life and work of working people.

Furthermore, in struggles for radical democratic restructuring, the working class and its allies not only come up against the insufficiencies of capitalism, but also gain the experience, desire, and unity to transform themselves and society.

Jobs and immediate relief

A starting point is the struggle for immediate relief for victims of the economic crisis. The accent should be on action — to provide unemployment benefits to every job seeker, to open livable homeless shelters and more food pantries, to prevent evictions, to support collective bargaining and strikes, to create jobs, to build health care clinics, schools, and public and cooperative housing, to halt utility cutoffs, and to aid decimated cities. Some of this is happening, but much more needs to be done. Such actions, led by the victims of the crisis as well as mass leaders and activists in unions, churches, neighborhood and ethnic organizations, block clubs, and social groups, are the roar from below that will give an urgency to the legislative process above. No one should be overwhelmed by the scope of the problems, or held back by the idea that mass action has to mean thousands of people. Mass is a relative term. The labor movement can play a special role. Ditto for the churches. Special attention should be given to the struggle for multi-racial, multi-national unity and equality — the struggle for the latter is a condition for the former. Recently, the AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Center for Community Change rolled out a proposal for a jobs and infrastructure program. It includes five critical points:

Extend the lifeline for jobless workers.
Rebuild America’s schools, roads and energy systems.
Increase aid to state and local governments to maintain vital services.
Fund jobs in our communities.
Put TARP funds to work for Main Street.

The campaign for such a program can become a channel for millions of people — unemployed and employed — to become participants in the jobs struggle. It can turn frustration, isolation, and despair into action, community, and hope. And it can be a yardstick by which to measure candidates in the 2010 election.

And it can also help to strip from the extreme right their claim to be “fighting for ordinary Americans.”

This campaign should be the bread and butter of every people’s organization. No one should sit it out. While the intended effect is economic — to create jobs — it will also have a political effect, deepening, broadening, and energizing the people’s movement and in so doing, shaking up Washington.

First Year

A year ago, we said that the country was entering an era of democratic reform and that the same coalition that defeated the right in the 2008 elections would drive the process going forward.

By and large, we were on the mark. But after a year of real events, real struggles, and real clashes of real people some changes in our thinking are necessary.

To begin, the first year of the Obama administration was a sprint. The conditions of struggle were far more favorable than in the preceding eight years, to say the least. The mood was hopeful. And the political conversation and agenda on a range of issues was reframed, thanks in no small measure to the president.

The forms of struggle were many — marches, picket lines, town hall meetings, civil disobedience, strikes, demonstrations, lobbying, phone banking, online petitions, solidarity actions, informal conversations and organizing, and so on. Some actions were local, others statewide, and still others national.

And the fight was bitter. The opposition gave no ground.

Early on the struggle over the collapsing economy was atop the agenda and that has continued. But other issues entered the public domain as well, placed there by the Obama administration and by the popular movement — health care, nuclear weapons, Iraq, financial regulation, Guantanamo, and climate change, to name a few. As a result, the space to take initiative, build broad unity, and organize for progressive change was considerably enlarged.

Lineup

Many dramatic struggles took place in 2009. To name a few, the plant takeover by workers at Chicago’s Republic Windows and Doors, the Ford workers’ rejection of a concessionary contract, G-20 actions, the campaign to win Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, campus protests in the University of California system, and the Chicago anti-bank protests.

However, the legislative process became the main site of class and democratic struggles. On both sides of every legislative issue, contending political blocs flexed their muscles and locked horns.

In the House, the majority of Democrats pressed for an agenda that addressed people’s needs. The caucuses — African American, Hispanic, Women’s, and Progressive — and individuals like Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders, and others — distinguished themselves. In nearly every instance they found themselves a step ahead of other Democrats and the Obama administration. The Blue Dogs, on the other hand, were busy trying to rein in reform measures.

Senate Democrats, despite holding 58 seats, plus the support of Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, were a different kettle of fish. While clashing with Republicans, they were less progressive than their counterparts in the House. And when combined with the rule that requires 60 votes to send legislation to the floor for deliberation and action, the Senate has been (and probably will continue to be) a drag on progressive change.

To make matters more difficult, corporate interests and their lobbyists poisoned the Congressional well in a thousand ways. Their ability to block or contain the legislative process goes way beyond simply owning a stable of Congress people. So much so that columnist Paul Krugman wondered in early September if the country was becoming ungovernable.

Outside of Washington, the loose people’s coalition that elected the president regrouped and redirected its energies to the legislative process.

At the core of this loose coalition are the main organizations of the working class, African American, Mexican American, and other racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women and youth.

In addition, seniors, immigrants, and many other social movements and organizations are in the mix.

The labor movement is a particularly active, clear, and unifying voice, and continues to emerge through dint of effort, organization, and resources as a leader of this broader coalition.

To no one’s surprise, the right wing hasn’t retired from politics. To the contrary, these “un-American” extremists also regrouped and came out fighting the president’s agenda, hoping to pave the way for the Republicans’ return to power.

With an African American in the White House, a Latina on the Supreme Court, the presence and acceptance of gay and secular sensibilities in the culture, continued challenges to patriarchal gender roles, and an economy that is laying waste to the position of the male as breadwinner, right-wing extremists in Congress and elsewhere are churning out racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-government appeals to white working people and especially white men. Limbaugh, Hannity, and other talk show hosts are howling to whoever will listen, “Take back America.”

Pat Buchanan, echoing the same theme, wrote, “America was once their [white people’s] country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.”

This drivel is racist and anti-working class. It goes against our democratic traditions, is an insult to every fair-minded white person, a falsification of history, and an appeal to division along the color line. It carries the foul odor of fascism.

Our country was built on the backs of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic working class and a system of slave labor that remained unchallenged for nearly three centuries. What is more, economic crises have a sharper impact on minority (and immigrant) communities. They are the first to “lose” their jobs, homes, living standards, rights, voice, and dignity.

This propaganda barrage is not new. But it is getting louder and uglier, evoking irrational and dangerous reactions from too many people. And its aim, though never stated, is to conceal the commonality of interests that organically glue together the multi-racial, multi-national, male-female, young-old, skilled-unskilled, white collar-blue collar, service-industrial, and immigrant-native born working class and its strategic allies.

I’m not suggesting that fascism is around the corner or that the majority of the American people embrace these backward sentiments. Other trends and public expressions go in the opposite direction, the most obvious example being the changes in consciousness that made possible the election of our first African American president.

What I am saying is that a progressive turn in our nation’s politics requires an intensified and broader struggle against racism, male supremacy, and other forms of division.

If unchallenged, racism and male supremacy (along with other divisive ideologies and practices) will disfigure and paralyze the people’s coalition. If embraced, they push the country in a disastrous direction.

Health care reform

The struggle for health care reform has given us a concrete glimpse of the contours, dynamics, and complexities of political life.

It has been a pitched battle. At one point there appeared to be a crack in the Republican edifice when Olympia Snowe voted to move the bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, but she quickly backpedaled when Majority Leader Harry Reid raised the issue of a public option.

On the other side of the aisle, nearly all the Democrats favor reform, though they quarrel over its nature.

Across the country a movement is charging forward. Early on the mobilization was inadequate, but that changed, thanks to the so-called tea parties that were a wakeup call for many who were enjoying the afterglow of the 2008 elections and underestimated what it would take to consolidate and extend that victory.

All sides in this struggle have gone to great lengths to frame the debate and shape public opinion. In the early going the right had some success with its fear-mongering — talk of death panels, socialism, Nazism, etc. — but that changed as health care supporters answered the challenge.

While many sections of labor favor a single payer system, they have avoided painting themselves into a corner. Instead they have stated their support for single payer while battling for the inclusion of the public option, and greeted the House bill with enthusiasm.

While labor differed with the Obama administration on some matters, it has done so in a thoughtful, respectful and unifying manner. It has not sought to score points, demonstrate superior wisdom, or expose Obama as a “do-nothing centrist.”

Other organizations of the popular movement — NOW, the NAACP, National Council of La Raza — as well as many of the health care organizations and coalitions take much the same approach.

The passage of legislation by the House and Senate, notwithstanding all the bill’s shortcomings, constitutes an important victory for comprehensive health care reform and progressive change generally. If the bill had been defeated, we would not be simply back to square one, as some suggest.

Rather, health care reform would be off the agenda, indefinitely. Political momentum would shift to the right wing, and prospects would be bleak for a second stimulus, Employee Free Choice, climate change legislation, immigration reform, and other key battles.

Some left and progressive people dismiss this danger, but politics is not only about passing laws, as important as that is — it is also about gaining and maintaining the initiative, building on victories no matter how small, and expanding the breadth and depth of the coalition at every opportunity. It’s higher math, not elementary addition and subtraction.

The health care reform fight is not over, of course. The president has yet to sign a bill and there is still is room to improve the final bill that eventually will go to him.

Observations a year in

It seems like every political pundit is critiquing President Obama’s first year in office — not surprising. But I will take a different tack, comparing how we saw Obama and the larger class and social forces a year ago with how things look now.

First, the broad coalition that elected the president a year ago still hasn’t yet fully regrouped, notwithstanding some very promising initiatives and struggles. We believe it will, but our earlier assessment didn’t take into account that the transition from an election mode to a post-election mode would be uneven and bumpy.

By Election Day 2008, people were exhausted and felt that they had done their part. They were ready to hand the ball off to the president and the new Congress. We didn’t appreciate this dynamic enough. Our view was not grounded in realism. To transform the coalition that elected Obama into a powerful political force will take a strenuous and sustained effort. And we are in the early stages. Success in doing this will have to be decisive to winning a progressive agenda.

Second, our estimate of the balance of forces and trends in Congress was too general. Democratic majorities there don’t necessarily translate into support for the president’s agenda — let alone a people’s agenda. There are diverse views, and progressive Democrats, while undeniably more influential, are not yet dominant. A more fine-grained analysis on our part was necessary.

Third, we resisted placing the administration and its individual members into neat political categories before they had begun to govern. At the time, that was correct, because such categorizations easily lead to narrow tactical approaches, which is especially bad in a moment of political fluidity and crisis. A year later, it’s appropriate to look more closely at the various trends, although it shouldn’t turn into a daily preoccupation.

Fourth, we exaggerated the magnitude of the defeat of right-wing extremism. Although the right no longer had political initiative nor set the agenda, it was still a major player in the nation’s political life. While Blue Dog and centrist Democrats are a drag on progressive politics, it is the extreme right in Congress and elsewhere that mobilizes a mass constituency, shapes public opinion, and employs racism and other forms of division and demagogy with the aim of obstructing and derailing the Obama presidency.

Though the election was a major defeat for the right, it retains a significant mass base, has connections to some of the most reactionary and powerful corporations, and possesses a dense network of think tanks and political action committees — not to mention the Republican Party. It also has a loud and insistent voice in the mass media and in the military and other coercive institutions. A comeback — a return to power — isn’t out of the question.

Fifth, our assessment didn’t give enough weight to the fact that the state is anything but a neutral institution standing above society and negotiating between competing interests. Rather it is a class based, historically determined set of institutions, procedures, policies, and personnel that, taken together, are resistant to any kind of radical (anti-corporate, anti-capitalist) restructuring, no matter how necessary. In recent decades, the interpenetration of big capital — especially finance, military and energy capital — and state/government structures has reached unprecedented levels.

This reality isn’t reason to stand aside from struggles within these structures, to yield this ground to capital. On the contrary, the terrain of the state is a crucial site of class and social struggles. Any serious movement for social change has to attach high priority to this. The securing of positions — elective and otherwise in the state apparatus — at every stage of the class and democratic struggle, and especially at this and subsequent stages — is imperative.

As we saw in last year’s election, millions of people were drawn into action and changed the terrain on which contesting political coalitions fight. No struggle over the past decade mobilized so many in such a sustained way as did the campaign to elect Barack Obama.

Thus, struggles within state structures are absolutely imperative, but with this caveat: their success in the longer term depends in large measure on the degree to which they symbiotically combine and coordinate with popular actions at the grassroots.

Sixth, our reading of changes in public opinion suffered from one-sidedness. On the one hand, we correctly noted that right-wing and neoliberal ideology resonates less and less with tens of millions of people, who are increasingly skeptical about “free markets” and unregulated capitalism.

But the problem with public opinion polls is that they don’t necessarily capture what Antonio Gramsci called “contradictory consciousness.” The same people can like a public health care option and even approve of socialism, but also be suspicious of big government; or support withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and at the same time want the Obama administration to eliminate al Qaeda in Afghanistan by any means necessary; or favor a second stimulus bill while opposing a larger deficit.

Most people (and social classes for that matter) don’t have a consistent worldview; rather, they have a worldview that is eclectic, contradictory and sensitive to changing circumstances and experience, not simply reducible to their place in a system of social production. For those who desire progressive change it is essential to better appreciate the complexity and fluidity of popular consciousness.

Finally, the struggle brings home the importance of the 2010 elections. The stakes are enormous.

Will the struggle for democratic reforms be deepened or reversed? Will the costs of the current crisis be placed on the shoulders of Wall Street and the wealthy, or working people and especially people of color?

Will we begin a sustained attack on global warming or remain stuck in a fossil fuel/carbon-based economy? Will racial and gender equality take new strides in the direction of freedom, or will a 21st century Jim Crow assert itself? Will the next decade be a decade of peace, or of violence and plunder? Will the stockpiles of nuclear weapons be reduced, or will the nuclear threat grow?

We could go on, but the point is obvious: the outcome of the midterm elections will have a major bearing on how each of these questions is answered. That so, the aim of the people’s coalition is clear: to increase the Democratic advantage in the Congress, including the number of progressives in the House and Senate, while at the same time defeating the Republican right.

The objective of the Republicans will be the opposite. They will throw everything into the 2010 elections, including lots of money and endless demagogy.

Three outcomes are possible. One is that the Republicans will make big gains; another is that neither party will pick up or lose any significant number of seats; and the last is that the Democrats will increase their majorities in the Congress. The latter is possible, but only if a health care bill passes, the unemployed find work, an to U.S. occupation is in sight, and, above all, an enormous bottom up mobilization of old and new voters is organized this year.

The genius of candidate Obama was his ability to find a narrative and vision that captured the political imagination of tens of millions. In last fall’s off-year elections, Democrats came up woefully short in this regard and too many voters stayed home. If this happens in 2010, the fight for progressive reform will be slow going. New faces, new voices, new voters, and new leaders are necessary to transform the political landscape in a more fundamental and enduring way.

Strategic direction

For nearly three decades, the Communist Party’s strategic policy envisioned the assembling of a broad coalition to defeat the right, whose political ascendancy began with Reagan’s election in 1980. Over the past decade we have further developed and refined this policy, while maintaining its essential character. The delegates to our national convention in 2005 formalized this in our new party program.

In the wake of the 2008 elections, however, it became apparent that some adjustments were necessary. But before going into this, some general remarks about our understanding of strategy are warranted.

A strategic policy springs from an analysis of the stage of development and the overall balance of political and class forces at a given moment. Attempting to derive strategic concepts from either abstractions (capitalism is historically obsolete — true) or mass moods (the people are angry as hell) is a recipe for political mistakes. Militancy and moral outrage must enter into our calculations and our practical activity, but neither one can determine the strategic approach of our party or the larger movement for that matter.

A solid strategic policy is derived from an assessment of the main social force(s) hindering progressive development at any given moment as well as which forces have an objective interest in moving society in an opposite, progressive, direction.

Strategy isn’t a fine-grained roadmap, but a guide to action. It is a first approximation of what is happening on the ground among the main class and social forces, which of them has the upper hand, and what it will take to move the political process forward.

If there were a direct path to social progress and socialism, strategic considerations wouldn’t matter. But there is no such path. The history of the 20th century is proof of that.

Instead the revolutionary process passes through phases and stages, despite the messy and chaotic nature of the historical process. Assessing when one phase or stage gives way to another is both an art and a science.

In contrast to strategy, tactics involve choices about issues, demands, forms of struggle, slogans, etc. to mobilize and unify masses of people. They are conditioned by strategic considerations, while, at the same time, bringing strategy to life.

The aim of tactics is not to up the ante at every turn, as too many on the left think. In fact, the challenge is to combine partial demands that elicit broad support and are winnable in the short term with more advanced demands that are not yet supported by a broad enough constituency but could be won in the course of ongoing struggles.

Adjustments in strategic policy

With the foregoing in mind, what adjustments, if any, in our strategic policy are warranted given the new landscape?

On the one hand, the strategic thrust of 2008 — to defeat the ultra right at the polls — doesn’t exactly fit the new conditions, but as mentioned earlier the right danger can’t be underestimated; it remains a considerable political, ideological and mass mobilizing force.

On the other hand, we are not yet at a consistently anti-monopoly, anti-transnational stage either, given the challenges facing the country and the world, the continued presence of the extreme right and its reactionary corporate backers, the level of consciousness of the American people, and the maturity of the people’s movement.

Thus, our strategic policy is a mixture of both. This isn’t surprising given the fluid and transitional nature of this period.

And yet as the process of democratic reform deepens, the class, anti-corporate, anti-transnational nature of the struggle will come to the fore more and more at the economic, political and ideological levels.

All of which goes to show that the struggle for democracy doesn’t dilute, postpone or bypass the class struggle, but brings it into bolder relief, extends the ground on which it is fought out, and introduces fresh voices and leaders. Just as the campaign to elect President Obama was the leading edge of the class struggle as well as the struggle for democracy in 2008, so too the fight to deepen democracy, broadly understood, in today’s conditions.

With this in mind, our strategic policy seeks to extend and deepen a coalition of political actors that stretches from President Obama to the core forces of the people’s movement, and also includes small and medium sized business, working-class people who are influenced by the right, sections of the Democratic Party and even sections of corporate capital.

The notion of pure forms of class struggle may sound radical, but it isn’t Marxist and doesn’t exist in the real world.

Lenin once remarked:

“To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. — to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, ‘We are for socialism,’ and another, somewhere else, says, ‘We are for imperialism,’ and that will be a social revolution!”

“Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.”

It would be a profound mistake to distance the working class and other core forces from temporary and even unreliable allies. In fact, a diverse alliance is the strategic cornerstone for progressive and radical reforms. Separately, neither the president nor the people’s organizations nor the working class can win against the political and class forces arrayed against them. But united, they pack a wallop! Many get this, especially labor and the other core forces of the people’s movement. And the African American people have always practiced it, as have other racially and nationally oppressed peoples.

Needless to say, the right wing — along with the corporate class — also gets it and is doing everything possible to bust it up.

So again, the challenge is to fully activate and maximize the unity of this very diverse, multi-class and fluid coalition in the course of concrete struggles. There will be tensions, contradictions and competing views, and the opposition is ferocious and clever.

All of us who want to live in a more just, peaceful and equal society must master the art of fighting for unity while, at the same time, stretching the boundaries of the possible and deepening the role of the core forces.

At this moment, the people’s movement has a fragile advantage. Neither side is yet able to gain hegemony in a political and ideological sense — that is to say, neither side’s views can claim to be the accepted common sense of millions. The political balance of forces doesn’t yet overwhelmingly favor the forces of progress.

The main elements of the New Deal were not passed in Roosevelt’s first year in office, but in 1935-1937. Nor did the popular insurgency arise in full bloom at the Depression’s outset. The New Deal victories were the fruit of a many-layered struggle of a motley group of social actors, taking place over time. The next decade(s) will be much the same.

A new emphasis

For some time we have accented the importance of breadth of the movement, but for this discussion a renewed emphasis on an old principle is warranted, namely focus on the multi-racial, multi-national, male-female working class. Because of the diversity of the developing coalition, it is all the more imperative to enhance the leadership role of the main core forces, and especially the working class and its organized sector.

Without this, the reform process will lose its focus and its political weight. Allies are critical in any struggle, but the core forces are indispensable.

Luckily, the core forces — which overlap with one another, thereby giving them a deep community of interests and enormous power — are in motion, but not yet to the degree that is necessary to enact a progressive agenda. How to increase the role of precisely these forces is the key task for every activist.

Our role

The new opportunities to be part of mass movements make it urgent that communists act, that we take initiative, that we bring and join a crowd. The doors are wide open!

If we aren’t a part of the immediate struggles — for health care, jobs, and relief, against foreclosures and utility shutoffs — then we are nowhere.

Some, however, say that it is not enough to be a part of a crowd, a broad coalition, and a bigger mix.

They ask, “Shouldn’t we make a contribution that distinguishes us from Democrats and other activists? Don’t others advocate for health care and workers’ rights, for ending the wars? So what’s our role, what makes us different? Shouldn’t we get something organizationally out of our activity — public acknowledgement, new members, speaking engagements, clubs?”

Fair questions and we should all try to answer them.

Communists are an organic part of the working class and broader movements. We share in the hopes, dreams, and joys of these movements (remember when the First Family walked onto the stage in Grant Park on election night?), as well as the hurt that comes with setbacks. We desire the same things — jobs, peace, equality, democracy, good schools for our children, security in old age, and so on.

We make mistakes and have warts. We are neither perfect nor all knowing. Sometimes we stumble; sometimes we grow weary, but we get back up and fight.

We feel anger at the injustice and immorality of capitalism. Our opposition to racial, gender, and other forms of oppression and our insistence on equality and unity is a matter of principle. Our sense of solidarity is worldwide in its reach. Action is at our core and Marxism is our guide to action. And our enduring commitment is to peace, democracy, and socialism.

To a degree this distinguishes us from others, but not in every instance because we don’t have a patent on radical thinking and politics. What makes us unique at this moment are our strategic insights and our struggle to apply them. Those who say we are no different from Democrats, other activists, and others on the left reveal a simplistic understanding — or no understanding — of our strategic policies, not to mention other features of our Party.

To be more concrete, our strategic orientation gives us:

An understanding of the primacy of broad unity;
An appreciation of the profound importance of the struggle for democracy (understood in the broadest sense: the right to job, housing, health care, equality, etc.);
A determination to build the widest possible “impure” movement while at the same time struggling to enhance the leadership role of the working class, the racially oppressed, women and youth;
A path along which a movement of millions can traverse from one stage of struggle to another stage and eventually to socialism;
An understanding of how divisions among the capitalist class and its allies can be utilized in the struggle for social progress;
And an appreciation of a perhaps-overlooked fact: there is no substitute for practical activity.

Our strategic policy is a concrete guide to understand and change the neighborhood, workplace, city, state, country and world that we live in. It is the tool in our political toolbox that allows us to lead struggles and movements. If we leave it home, our ability to lead will limp.

In sum, our strategic insights are what differentiates us from other currents, including many on the left. Some may share one or more of our insights, but few embrace and employ them all.

Some political and ideological questions

The president doesn’t simply register and reflect the balance of power; he influences it as well; no other person has as much power. To identify him as a centrist Democrat akin to Clinton or Carter 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 the 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 does activating the various forces that elected him — the latter takes a strategic sense, flexible tactics, creative thinking, and hard work. In fact, 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.

The point is that criticisms of President Obama should be done in a unifying and constructive way. The success or failure of the administration will resonate for years. A deep imprint will be left on class and racial relations. It is hard to imagine how a successful struggle for reforms can happen without Obama 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 it means that anything less than a system-wide change is unimportant, 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 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 class struggle, isn’t that what labor is doing, with its election mobilization 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, the old style of leadership hasn’t completely disappeared, and rank-and-file participation is not where it should be.

But 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 worldview. It analyzes the existing and developing tendencies, laws, and contradictions 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.

Marxism is not only a science and worldview, but 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; 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 every question and an exact estimate of the balance of forces at any given moment.

As a method of analysis, Marxism emphasizes fluidity, reexamination and rethinking, 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 criticize us from the far 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.

Opening new doors to the party

We have acknowledged the difficulty of building the party and press, but after some discussion in the National Board we are persuaded that we should begin from a different vantage point. So here it is:

This is the most favorable time to build the party and press (and the Young Communist League) in 40 years, especially among our multi-racial, multi-national, male/female, young/old working class. The bitter experience of our working class over the past three decades has eroded their confidence in American capitalism.

They haven’t completely given up on it, but because of what has happened many people are questioning its ability to provide a satisfying life and thus are open to thinking about new ways of structuring society.

Of course, we share their view and when combined with our strategic insights, our understanding of Marxism, our working class and multi-racial, multi-national roots, and our tactical flexibility, we become an attractive package.

So although lots of organizations are out there, and anti-communism does still resonate, the possibilities for growth in influence and size are very promising.

Growth won’t happen automatically — few things do. And in the near term our growth will still be incremental at every level, including on the Internet.

To respond to the new possibilities for growth, we will have to restructure our work at every level and move full throttle into the online world. In particular, we have to provide more entry points into the party and YCL.

What do I mean? First, joining the party should not be considered as a point of entry, but rather as a point of destination. Not everyone will come closer or into the party in the same way. The clubs should not be the exclusive form through which new members join the party. Even though we hope every member does participate in a club, we can’t insist on it at the outset. And for those people who join online, there is no club for them to be in, so we will have to provide them with virtual/online forms of participation.

We have to accept and adapt to the reality that times have changed; the pace of life is so much faster; the requirements of living are so much more, and leisure time has become a private affair.

Moreover, our political culture and people’s connection to political parties is different. Eric Hobsbawm, the great Marxist historian, said a while ago in an article that the days of a cadre party are over.

I’m not sure if it ever existed, but I agree with him that it doesn’t now. The typical member in a growing party will never be a 24-hour, dawn-to-dusk communist. Like any party, movement, or organization, we need a growing pool of dedicated leaders at every level, but our membership in the main will not fall into that category.

The party will be an important but not all-consuming item on their agenda. We shouldn’t try to fit square pegs into round holes. We need to be looser, more open, more visible, friendlier, more social and hold more action specific club meetings. We can do this without losing our ideological punch or our understanding of the necessity of grassroots clubs.

If we agree that growth is a political priority, we have to take steps to organize that growth; we have to develop a very practical plan, including these elements:

Club meetings have to be vibrant and connected to doing something about real life problems; boring and do-nothing discussions will not make for an attractive place for new people to hang their hats;

Building our online press is crucial. This is a task of every member, every club and every collective. No one should sit it out. What better way to reach a huge audience? Our online team does incredible work, but they would be the first to say, “All hands on deck.”

More entry points are necessary where friends and activists can acquaint themselves with us. Too few exist now. And again, one size doesn’t fit all.

Finally, lists of friends and contacts have to be constructed collectively; follow-up is necessary; and experience should be shared.

Young people and the YCL

Most of what I’ve said about growing the party applies in one way or another to the YCL, and given the strategic importance of the young generation, the YCL deserves close attention and assistance by the party.

It is our partner in struggle. In recent months we’ve made some proposals to deepen our working relationships. Some of the most important are:

Reviewing and assisting in the leadership transition;
Integrating YCL leadership into the discussions of the party’s leadership;
Hosting a seminar on youth;
Hosting a meeting of former members of the YCL who haven’t joined the party;
Deepening consultation and joint action at the city/state level.

These steps go in the right direction, but they only represent a beginning.

We have a lot of challenges and opportunities before us. But I’m sure that we are going to seize the time just as communists have done over the past nine decades, Happy 90th anniversary Communist Party USA and many, many more!

CPUSA Convention: A Call for United Action

29th Convention Organizing Committee — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:46:00 -0500

A Call for United Action to Create Jobs, End Foreclosures, Hunger, Poverty, Racism and War

Download the PDF version

The Communist Party USA will convene its 29th National Convention in New York City, May 21-23, 2010. It comes in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of working people have lost their jobs, their homes, their means of survival. Hunger and homelessness stalk the land. Desperation and anger are growing. Our convention must address this worsening humanitarian crisis.

The U.S. Senate must immediately pass the $174 billion ‘Jobs for Main Street’ bill already approved by the House, that extends unemployment compensation and creates new jobs. This can be won.

We join in the powerful movement now springing up demanding a massive public works and public service jobs program to create millions of green jobs and rebuild America, to demand a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions.

The key is broad united action, overcoming all obstacles that hold the movement back, getting a massive vote against the ultra-right in the primaries and in the midterm general election Nov. 2.

The convention comes in the 90th anniversary year of the Party’s founding. We look back on nine decades of the Party’s deep engagement in the struggles of our working class and people, a proud record of building a broad multiracial, multinational movement for democracy, jobs, equality, peace, and socialism. Among our proudest achievements was initiating the Councils of the Unemployed and spearheading the struggle for public works jobs, a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, unemployment compensation and Social Security in the 1930s. We are as deeply engaged in those life and death struggles today as we were in 1919.

New York City, citadel of finance capital is also our nation’s largest city with the largest concentration of organized workers and national minorities. The CPUSA has joined in the struggles of the city’s working class, from the election of city council-members, Pete Cacchione and Ben Davis to the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers to leading in the organization of the New-York-based Transport Workers Union, The National Maritime Union, the Fur & Leather Workers Union and New York healthcare workers unions.

Our convention will be held at the CPUSA’s magnificent, redesigned “green” headquarters building in the Chelsea district of Manhattan. We will take advantage of the new electronic media, broadcasting parts of the convention to audiences all across the nation.

This is a time of transition and renewal. The election of President Barack Obama and ending Republican majority rule in the House and Senate has opened many padlocked doors. The long nightmare of right-wing misrule could be coming to an end. Our nation’s political landscape is changing. The possibilities for transformative, progressive changes are enormous.

This past year of struggle for national health care reform proves that the ultra-right, bankrolled by Wall Street and the big corporations, will stop at nothing to filibuster meaningful change. They are a ferocious enemy. Yet the struggle was advanced and the foundation was laid for a health care victory in the months and years ahead.

The main arena of battle in 2010 is the midterm elections. The Republican right is amassing a huge war-chest in hopes of recapturing majority control of the House and increase their ability to use the filibuster in the Senate . They want to misdirect the mass anger over the continuing economic crisis towards the administration, minorities and immigrant workers. Our convention will chart a fight back strategy to defeat this rightwing threat. We align ourselves with the broad multi racial, politically diverse coalition that delivered the historic victory in the 2008 election. The challenge now is to consolidate, widen and deepen that victory which can help open an era of progressive change.

As we enter a new year — and a new decade — we are confident that the democratic, progressive majority can win the day. The struggle for green jobs and to end the plague of foreclosures can be won. Racial and gender equality can be advanced. All forms of bigotry, so poisonous to any democratic process, can be set back. The building of a much larger trade union movement and all people’s movement is within our grasp. And we can end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that cost thousands of Iraqi, Afghan and U.S. lives and a trillion tax dollars needed to rebuild our country.

A larger Communist Party and YCL and a greatly expanded readership of People’s World and Political Affairs on the internet is necessary and possible in this period. Given a fair hearing, our vision of Bill of Rights Socialism will be embraced by broad masses who are more and more determined to have a better life for themselves and their families.

See you in New York, May 21-23!

For more information on the Convention, email convention2010@cpusa.org

"Don't Mourn, Organize!" is the Lesson of Massachusetts Election

Joelle Fishman — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:58:00 -0500

Based on a report to the National Board, CPUSA on January 21, 2010

"Don't Mourn, Organize!" This is the growing call form labor and progressive forces following the upset election in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown to fill Edward Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate.

The 52%-47% vote gives Senate Republicans, who have blocked every piece of legislation for people's needs, one more vote, threatening defeat of health care reform to which Kennedy devoted his career.

Even before the polls closed, the right-wing and the media began their spin that the President and Congress should forget their agenda and give in to Republican obstructionism

Such an approach would be a much larger disaster than the loss of one seat.

Voters were angry and looking for relief from the economic crisis, They did not see the jobs that were created from the stimulus. They feared that their health benefits would be taxed or taken away. They didn't hear Democrat Martha Coakley address their concerns, while Scott Brown used populist rhetoric and clips of JFK to claim the Kennedy legacy.

"You see," said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, "they believe that Wall St. is being taken care of. They believe that corporate America is being taken care of. They believe the insurers are being taken care of. But they don't think that workers are being taken care of."

The Democratic Party in Massachusetts was divided after the primary elections, adding to the inability to get out the vote. When national Republican strategists saw the opening of a weak Democratic campaign, their play book went into effect. Millions of dollars were raised on-line from around the country, utilizing the teabaggers network built up over the summer. TV airtime was filled with ads, and automated phone calls went into voters' homes.

Polls did not show that Coakley was in trouble until a couple of weeks before election day. By the time a union get-out-the-vote program was put into place, and President Obama and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis came to campaign, it was too little too late.

Most big and medium sized cities, and the small de-industrialized towns in western Massachusetts went for Coakley, but not in large enough numbers to carry her over the top.

During the campaign, union members knocked on over 56,000 doors and made over 760,000 phone calls. The AFL-CIO sent 95,000 pieces of mail to union members homes.

A state labor leader told The Hill magazine, "If officials go running to the center like some are calling for, and away from what they campaigned on, they learned exactly the wrong lesson from this election."

AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman agreed. "When a candidate is strong on the issues and has a strong campaign and makes the case, the union program can turn out voters for that candidate. When the candidate is weak or hasn't been able to prove him or herself that they are fighters for working people, then it's very hard to turn people out," she said.

The anger and frustration about jobs and the economy is national. To regain momentum, big, bold, decisive actions are required that will create millions of jobs and rebuild the economy. It will take standing up to the opposition, not giving in.

An exit poll on health care conducted for Democrats for America showed that "by a margin of three-to-two, former Obama voters who voted for Republican Scott Brown said the Senate health care bill "doesn't go far enough." Six-to-one Obama voters who stayed home agreed. And to top it off, 80% of all voters still want the choice of a public option in the bill."

An AFL-CIO poll conducted by Hart Research showed that the recent Democratic compromise to tax working families health care benefits is a losing strategy. Voters who thought their health care would be taxed voted 64% for Brown in protest.

This week, as Congressional leaders consider options with the loss of the 60th vote in the Senate, the national coalition Health Care for America Now is holding press events, rallies and e-mails to "Finish Health Reform Right," according to the principles that "health care must be affordable for everyone, not tax benefits and hold insurance companies accountable with the choice of a public health insurance option."

The election in Massachusetts should not be read as a shift to the right, but rather as an indication of inconsistent thinking and flux on the part of voters in a time of hardship and the biggest wealth gap in history. It was a protest telling Democrats they must take on the opposition and deliver for people's needs.

Following upon the election of Republican Governors in New Jersey and Virginia, the Massachusetts vote is a huge warning that if the racism and demagogic populism of the right-wing is not taken on, and if the broad movement that elected President Obama is not rekindled and enlarged, the country could take a dangerous and repressive turn backward.

Since the election of President Obama, the extreme right-wing has created new organizations with the goal of bringing down the administration, winning huge gains in Congress this year, and re-taking the presidency in 2012.

People for the American Way warns that "groups like FreedomWorks which organized early Tea Party rallies and urged right wing activists to shout down and disrupt town hall meetings mobilized voters on behalf of Brown."

Following the election, John McCain reported that his group Country First conducted a direct contribution effort for Brown and sent two million e-mails seeking campaign volunteers. "We are just getting started in our fight against the catastrophic agenda the Democrats are pushing nation wide," he writes. "Country First is dedicated to electing bold leaders like Scott Brown to office...in every region of the country."

Two days after the Massachusetts vote, the Supreme Court in a five to four decision gave carte blacnche to corporate spending on election campaigns. "If this stands, you can kiss America goodbye," remarked Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-8) saying, "We have filed six bills to reverse this assault, the "Save Our Democracy" platform. Together, we will move these bills forward and prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder."

Republican strategist Dick Morris was gleeful with the outcome in Massachusetts, and used that as a jumping board to imagine how each and every Democratic Senator could be defeated to create a Republican majority in this year's elections. This trumpeting as a harbinger of things to come is part of the plan to create a favorable political climate for reaction.

But these dire projections will not become reality if labor along with the African American, Latino, Asian Pacific American, women and youth voters in the first place mobilize like never before at the grass roots and push Congress and the President to take on Wall Street and deliver for jobs and economic security including direct government programs financed by cutting spending on the wars and taxing extreme wealth.

The coalition Immigration Reform FOR America urged, "don't let any of this distract you from doing your job" to organize for comprehensive immigration reform that is coming up before Congress this year. They pointed out that "Comprehensive immigration reform will add 1.5 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy, drive up wages for all workers, and support nearly a million jobs... needed to ignite support and insure turnout from Latino and independent voters."

In preparation for his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama visited hard hit Lorain, Ohio to address his program for economic relief. "The President isn't walking away from these challenges. In fact, his determination and resolve are only stronger," wrote Mitch Stewart, director of Organizing for America, as he called upon supporters to "match his commitment with our own."

Trumka's straightforward call to action to all working people sets the pace for the 2010 elections. "It's up to us to fight... because there's nothing more important than creating an economy that works for average working people. There's nothing more important than creating jobs, and there's nothing more important than putting our people back to work," he said. "Now's the time for us to do that. It's up to us to force both parties to fix the problems for working America."

Joelle Fishman

Chair, Political Action Commission

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattimattila/ / CC BY 2.0

Guidelines for Pre-Convention Discussion

29th Convention Organizing Committee — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:39:00 -0500

Guidelines and Rules

Pre-Convention Discussion Period

CPUSA 29^th National Convention

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is conducting a period of discussion to engage party members, allies, friends and the public in a deliberation of party policy, politics, and the issues of the day leading up to its 29th National Convention, May 21-23, 2010. The Pre-Convention discussion period runs from January 21 to May 21.

The National Committee has produced four main discussion documents to get the ball rolling. "U.S. Politics at a Transition Point" is the main discussion document. In addition, there is a document on party building, one on the party's program and strategic policy, and one on international issues and foreign policy. Discussion of and responses to these documents are the baseline of the discussion period and are encouraged. Downloadable PDFs of these documents are available online. An email list will provide updates on discussion contributions and important information about convention organizing.

A booklet containing the four main discussion documents in English and Spanish and other key information will be printed and distributed nationally. Other contributions to the discussion can be printed from various electronic sources for local discussion in Clubs and Districts.

CPUSA members, bodies and collectives are encouraged to submit responses, essays, videos, audio recordings, papers and other contributions to the discussion in order to help determine party policy going forward from the Convention. Individuals, leaders and allies who are not members of the Communist Party are welcome to submit contributions. Priority for publishing documents and contributions will be for members and bodies of the Communist Party. Submissions may be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org or mailed to Convention Discussion, Communist Party USA, 235 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10011.

The name and district of the author must be included with all submissions. Non-members should include name, city and state.

Contributions in English or Spanish will be accepted. We cannot commit to translate all materials. All submissions should be thoroughly edited and proofread. Please attach a word processing file (Microsoft Word, or Open Office for instance) for text submissions. Text email alone will not be accepted. Most video and audio formats are acceptable. We may return poor quality submissions to be edited and formatted properly.

In addition, a members-only online discussion will be conducted on the cpusa.org website. Members must register for the discussion forums on the site. Once membership is confirmed with the District, the member will be free to participate. All members will be limited to three comments or contributions per day in the members-only forum to encourage wide participation and avoid any one person dominating. All Party rules and discussion guidelines apply in the members-only forums.

In addition to written submissions, much of the deliberation will take place in live discussions of documents and papers organized by Party Clubs, Districts, Commissions and the National Office. All discussions must occur through Party structures.

The Communist Party will provide various venues to facilitate discussion among its members but will not accept contributions that are offensive, profane, defamatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-working class, anti-communist or violate the principals of the CPUSA Constitution. Personal attacks are not allowed. Members that repeatedly or flagrantly violate these guidelines may be barred from discussion venues.

In addition to the cpusa.org website, which is the main online venue for party discussion:

Some shorter contributions up to 600 words on topical issues and current events may be published on www.peoplesworld.org or other venues;

Some longer contributions and more theoretical items up to 1200 words may be published on www.politicalaffairs.net or other venues;

Contributions up to 1200 words from party bodies and commissions and may be published on www.cpusa.org;

No contribution should be longer than 1200 words or 7 minutes of audio or video content. Contributions larger than these limits here may be considered from Party Commissions.

Final venue for publication will be up to the Convention Organizing Committee.

All contributions should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection not to the individual venues.

The Communist Party takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed during the Convention Discussion period. Those views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Communist Party, its leading bodies or staff members. The CPUSA Constitution, Program, and all its existing policies remain in effect during the Convention discussion period and during the Convention.

The People of Haiti Still Need Your Help and Solidarity

CPUSA National Board — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:20:00 -0500

The massive earthquake which hit Haiti nearly two weeks ago has left up to 200,000 dead, tens of thousands of injured and sick, and 3 million people affected in other ways—out of Haiti’s population of 9 million people.

The American people along with the international community can help make sure that Haiti is not once again going to be forced into debt to deal with this disaster, or to accept conditions on aid that are not compatible with Haiti’s national sovereignty or the interests of the Haitian people. Rather, Haiti’s international debt should be cancelled entirely.

But the highest priority right now is to get as much direct help to the Haitian people as possible. A massive aid effort has been mounted. We encourage everyone to make an individual contribution, as well as getting your unions, community organizations, churches and other groups to pitch in. Every penny counts.

Money, equipment, medicine, supplies and skilled volunteers (doctors, nurses, search and rescue personnel etc) are all needed. There are many excellent charities that are providing urgent help on the ground in Haiti. We encourage you to give what you can to this important humanitarian effort. Here is a just a partial list of ways to help:

Organized labor has stepped to the plate, with a $500,000 donation from the United Auto Workers, and thousands of unionized nurses (from The National Nurse Union) volunteering to go to Haiti to help. Read about what labor is doing and get ideas on how to hook up with labor’s efforts.

You can make contributions by contacting the Haitian Embassy 271 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10016. Phone: 212.697.9767. Fax: 212.681.6991.

It is also easy to make a contribution through your cell phone without a credit card. $5 can be sent to via singer Wyclef Jean Yelé Haiti. Just text the word "YELE" to 501501.
A $5 donation will be charged to your cell phone bill.

Donations are accepted through UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, which works for children's rights, their survival, development and protection, guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Oxfam is an international aid group already working in Haiti.

Doctors Without Borders is an independent grasroots effort with mobile hospitals, equipment and personnel on the ground in Haiti.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has long experience working on emergency response.

For those who have family in Haiti, the number 1-888-407-4747 has been set-up by the U.S. government to help you reach your family in Haiti.

The crisis in Haiti will not be solved quickly. As emergency support winds down, we all must seek to keep the Haitian people in our thoughts and support them with our deeds. The Communist Party supports long-term efforts to help rebuild Haiti as an independent and thriving nation and to overcome the poverty and inequality that has plagued our Caribbean neighbor for generations.

For more on the history of Haiti, its people and their struggles, visit People's World for the latest news and analysis.

National Board

Communist Party, USA

The Communist Party Convention kicks off with a discussion of the issues of the day

Sam Webb — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:00:00 -0500

Convention Discussion Presentation
with Communist Party Chair Sam Webb

Thurs, Jan 21, 2010
8pm Eastern time

The Communist Party USA is pleased to announce its 29th National Convention, to be held May 21-23, 2010 in New York City. The Convention is a time for the party to elect its leaders, set policies and discuss the important issues of the day. It is an important and exciting meeting at a critical time in our country's history.

To build for the Convention, we are hosting a four-month long discussion period beginning Thursday, January 21. Members of the Communist Party, our friends and allies, and anyone else are encouraged share their thoughts about the many issues and struggles working families face today: from the fight for peace and against the wars, the fightback against the economic crisis, the movement to halt environmental destruction and more. We will employ a number of venues for the discussion nationally and locally. Check out www.cpusa.org for more information.

The kick-off event of the Convention discussion period will be a live video presentation by Communist Party Chair Sam Webb. Everyone is welcome to participate via phone or Internet connection. There will be time for Mr. Webb to answer a few short questions at the end of the presentation. If you would like to submit questions ahead of time, please send them to questions@cpusa.org. You will be able to ask questions during the event as well.

Labor and People's Unity and Grass Roots Action Key in 2010

Joelle Fishman — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:41:00 -0500

Report to National Committee 1/9/10

Download PDF version

One year ago standing among the diverse, beautiful million-plus outpouring in the nation's capitol to witness the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the air was filled with both anticipation and worry. Anticipation for a new direction that the labor and people's outpouring, so key to the election result, represented. Worry for the presence of the ultra-right/corporate stronghold on government with three decades of rubble left behind, and their ruthless use of racism and fear to create divisions and maintain control.

As Sam Webb discusses in his article "Observations One Year In," perhaps that worry was not strong enough and perhaps the understanding of the fundamental role of labor and the core forces to social progress was not sufficiently grasped. But lessons are being learned as a result of the experiences in 2009.

The consolidation and transformation is still underway, from an election outpouring of labor, African American, Latino, Asian Pacific and all racially oppressed, women and youth — the core forces — into a post-election united organizing force that can win relief from the economic crisis and accomplish adoption of a bigger people's agenda.

Every attempt and effort has been employed by the corporate right-wing Republicans and extremist media, with no expense spared, to split apart the people's alliance and peel off Obama's supporters through division, anger and frustration.

They are utilizing obstructionist tactics and filibuster inside Congress to block legislation, calculating that voters will blame Democrats for gridlock.

Their goal is to take back the House and Senate in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012.

Despite Republican tactics the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act were all signed into law this year, Hilda Solis was confirmed as Labor Secretary, Eric Holder was confirmed as Attorney General and Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to serve on the US Supreme Court as well as many other positive appointments at all levels of the judiciary and agencies like Labor and HUD.

However, a popular frustration with the pace of change is evident in some quarters. In part, it arises from the depth of the economic crisis and the desperate conditions that millions are facing.

This frustration reflects reliance on, and high expectations from Democratic Party control of the White House and a majority in Congress. But pro-worker change cannot be expected to emanate simply from the White House and Congress. It will take big, bold actions from the grass roots, from labor and community, to carry the momentum for challenging the banks and corporations and creating the climate for such legislation to make its way through Congress to the President's desk for signing.

The frustration also reflects an underestimation of the ultra-right, of the catastrophic damage from Bush policies, and what would be entailed to stop and reverse that destruction. The most reactionary sectors, acting through the Republican Party in Congress and their massive right-wing propaganda machine have cynically created a phony populism and widespread mis-perception that the Obama administration is primarily responsible for the policies that favor Wall St. In fact, while the administration has not challenged the domination of economic policy by finance capital, it is the Republicans who have blocked even modest efforts at meaningful reform and are blocking more significant measures to meet peoples needs including health care.

What has slowed down change? With vicious purpose, every Republican has voted on Party lines against every progressive measure including against health care reform. Not one Republican voted for the stimulus package that was passed.

The Democrats, on the other hand, represent a wide political spectrum.

58 of the Democrats in the House were elected from traditionally Republican districts that McCain carried. These were hard fought seats and part of the broad alliance to defeat the extreme right-wing. Many of these Democrats voted with Republicans on key legislation.

The 81 Democrats who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus joined with the Black, Hispanic and Asian American Pacific Caucuses to form the Quad Caucus, which has served as a strong force to enact, strengthen and improve the Obama agenda.

The biggest challenge is in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to prevent a filibuster. The Democratic caucus has exactly 60 members including conservative independent Joe Lieberman who, along with several conservative Democrats, supported Republican filibusters, creating a log jam to slow down or block passage of any legislation especially health care.

Progress could not have been made this year without the mobilizations that took place demanding relief, organized in large part by the labor movement and Organizing for America But the mobilizations were not large enough. They were not on the scale of the groundswell in 2008.

Historically, the labor and people's movement and it's unity role is at the heart of all progressive change. As Communists, our biggest contribution to the 2010 elections, and to the forward motion of our country, is building unity and mass action at the grass roots, based in labor and core forces, to address the crisis, collectively improve living and working conditions, and expand the electorate. The biggest challenge now is to find the forms by which the anger and frustration can be organized and mobilized around progressive demands.

Within the broad, multi-class alliance against the right-wing, a strong pro-labor grass roots movement is needed to project a people's agenda and counter the dangerous and demagogic populism from the ultra-right. The people's agenda would include a program to create millions of good green jobs along with health care, housing, education, immigrant rights, peace and climate change.

Republican hopes are to block any major legislative reform and keep opinion turned against Congress. If they are successful, their chances at retaking majority control are considered good. With extremists in control, the backlash for working people and for the Obama administration would be grim.

The defeat of Democratic Governors in New Jersey and Virginia is a big warning sign. In both cases, with different specifics, there was a lack of mobilization and a subsequent lack of turnout especially in heavily Democratic and low income voting districts.

But Republican gains in the Congressional mid-term elections are not a given. In November's special election, Democrat Bill Owens won in New York's rock-rib Republican 23rd CD after an extremist Republican backed by Sarah Palin pushed out a more moderate Republican candidate.

The goal must be to defy historical precedent in which the party of the President loses seats in the mid-term election. Losses will make it that much harder to push through the agenda for change that Obama campaigned on. The "Yes We Can" slogan and outlook must be raised up. We must argue that in these perilous times, voters can be convinced to vote their basic class interests as they did in 2008 to defeat the corporate-right-wing Republicans. Building the grass roots mass movements to push for jobs and immediate relief will be a basic contribution to this unity and to engaging new voters and expanding the electorate.

With such an approach, it is possible to project increasing the number of progressive and pro-labor members of Congress in 2010, protect progressive incumbents, and increase the Democratic majority.

Key Races

All 435 House seats and a third of the 100 Senate seats — 16 Democrats and 19 Republicans — are up for election on November 2. The Democratic caucus in the Senate is 60 to 40. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives is 257 to 178.

This report is based on the National Journal and other lists of competitive races. It will be added to and modified with new information and developments.

In addition to Congress, there are 36 Governors plus the State Legislatures up for election. The significance is magnified by the fact that this is a census year when redistricting will take place, and by the enormity of state budget deficits in the economic crisis.

The year starts out with the Illinois primary on February 2.

This follows on the remarkable campaign by Rick Nagin for city council in Cleveland, Ohio, which brought together a broad multi-racial labor-community coalition that continues to function today.

There are similar campaigns for State Legislature in California and Missouri.

The Working Families Party continues to expand independent electoral politics. Working Family candidates will be on the ballot for State Legislature in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and South Carolina usually using fusion to run on more than one line. Working Families just formed in Vermont. The Progressive Party in Vermont is fielding candidates for state officers.

The national focus in 2010 is on Congress. In such a hotly contested election year, every open seat is significant. Open seats provide either an opportunity to make gains, or a challenge to hold on. A couple of additional Democratic seats in the Senate could undermine the filibuster tactic being used by Republicans. The Republicans are spending huge sums to go after every open Senate seat, including Sen. Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election on January 19.

At least 11 incumbent Senators are not seeking re-election including MO (Bond-R), OH (Voinovich-R), FL (Martinez-R), IL (Burris-D), CT (Dodd-D)

In the House at least 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans are not seeking re-election. Some are retiring, most are running for Governor or Senate including Kendrick Meek in Florida. They include Democrat: FL-17(Meek), PA-7 (Sestak primary for Senate against Specter), WA-3 (Baird retiring); Republican: FL-12 (Putnam), IL-10 (Kirk running for Senate, Dan Seals and Julie Hamos primary), MI-2 (Hoekstra retiring), MO-7 (Blunt running for Senate).

Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and California have top competitive races at every level — for Governor, U S Senate and U S House. New York, Florida, Maryland and Connecticut have multiple key races, and most states have at least one key race.

Holding on to Democratic seats in order to keep the majority is an important goal, including recently won seats in Republican districts. But there is also the goal of improving on the pro-labor content of the House and Senate. There are some progressive candidates challenging conservative Democrats in the primaries. Peace candidate Marcy Winograd is challenging Jane Harman in California's 17th CD on a program of green job creation. On a case by case basis, we should encourage labor and progressive primary candidates while taking caution not to close doors for the general election depending on the outcome of the primary.

At the end of the report, links are included to the election calendar by state and by month, and to the member lists of the Quad Congressional caucuses and the Blue Dog Coalition.

Legislative Struggles

The inspiration and urgency that created the groundswell for Obama's election can hopefully be ignited in response to the dire situation working people and young people find themselves in. The five point jobs program of the AFL-CIO and Jobs for America Now must be brought to life with mobilizations, actions, outreach and education against the fear tactics of the extreme right-wing.

The ultra-right has relied on big lies and racism to create confusion. One is that government should not have a role in guaranteeing a good quality of life for everyone.

That argument is paired with the idea that government programs for people's needs are responsible for a growing deficit. This is especially demagogic as it was during the Bush administration that the deficit exploded with huge cuts in taxes for the rich and an escalating military budget.

Health Care

The first target in the health care battle were seniors who were told that government "death panels" would decide of they could get care. It took the labor movement retirees organizations to set the record straight that Medicare is in fact a government program and expansion would benefit everyone.

Women were targeted with the attempt to turn back the clock on abortion rights through the health care bill, as a way to splinter the coalition and block the legislation. Some within the faith based community stepped forward and rejected these litmus tests.

The bill being crafted now by Congressional leadership is expected to come out for vote by the end of the month. The fight for the best possible bill, drawing from the House version to address big problems in the Senate version, continues as we meet. Wednesday, January 13 is a national call-in day to Congress. The AFL-CIO message is for health care reform that:does not tax workers' health care benefits; requires employers to pay their fair share; controls health care costs and the best way to do that is by creating a public health care insurance plan option. Messages are also being sent to Congress to protect women's reproductive rights and end waiting limits for immigrants, and the right of states to carry out a public option.

While there is debate over the benefit of a weak bill, the fact that over 30 million people will get coverage cannot be dismissed. Passage will constitute a setback for the corporate ultra-right who do not want any bill, and will also create a more favorable terrain for the 2010 elections. The fight for health care as a basic human right including single payer and a national health service continues and builds on the work of this year.

Jobs and EFCA

Before adjournment in December, the Jobs for Main Street Act passed the House 216-212. Its purpose is to create or save jobs by redirecting $75 billion from TARP funds (Wall St.) to highways and transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, and firefighters, small business, job training and affordable housing.

The struggle for good, green job creation including public works jobs targeted to neighborhoods in greatest need, is moving onto center stage. Beyond job creation is the need for an economy that is restructured in the interests of working people.

The urgency for jobs is underscored by growing poverty. Six million people — one out of every 50 — lives in a household with no income except food stamps. They are among the half of the unemployed who do not receive unemployment benefits.

Extension of unemployment benefits, a targeted second stimulus and direct government green jobs creation is the program of the national coalition of labor, civil rights, faith based and environmental organizations which is launching a grass roots organizing campaign.

Mobilization at the grass roots around the demand for jobs can build unity and support for government job creation and for expansion of workers' rights including the right to form a union and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Our main pre-convention discussion document, "No easy road to the future — but we'll get there" by Sam Webb includes a section "Jobs and Immediate Relief" that lends itself to a nationally coordinated campaign at the district and club level to strengthen our ties with the multi-racial, multi-national working class, and join with labor and core forces to help organize the victims of the crisis and register and involve young people and other new voters.

[Link to list of organization in the Jobs for America Now coalition]

Immigration reform

Immigrant rights organizations have pressed for reform since the election of President Obama. There is organized pressure for immigration reform to be taken up in Congress by March before the heat of election season. Mass lobbying campaigns are already underway around HR 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security And Prosperity (CIR ASAP) introduced by Rep. Solomon Ortiz with 92 co-sponsors including the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus joined by the Quad Caucus. Labor and many leading immigrant groups are in support. A Senate version of the bill is expected to be introduced this month which probably will be more restrictive. If complete reform does not get passed, it is possible that some elements to relieve the situation of the 12 million without documents will be acted on. There is growing recognition that naturalized immigrants and the children of immigrants are voting in large numbers and can make the difference in key races. We have updated our Immigrant Rights principles and factsheet. It will be posted in English and Spanish on the CPUSA website by the end of January.

{Link to HR 4321]

Military budget

Funding to escalate the number of troops to Afghanistan is meeting opposition within Congress. In December, a group of 12 co-sponsors including five Republicans, signed onto Rep Dennis Kucinich's Privileged Resolution to End the Afghan War. The resolution links the needs of 15 million unemployed to the fact that "the country cannot continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on disastrous wars." The Jobs not War theme provides the basis for expanding public opposition to increased troop levels and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time mobilizing in favor of immediate job creation. Congressional hearings are anticipated in February and March to discuss the impact of military spending on jobs creation and other domestic needs, linking to the need for a green jobs, demilitarized economy. Allocations for the military budget, including nuclear weapons, are now up to 55% of all discretionary spending. In some states, with the help of National Priorities Project, initiatives are being taken to call for cuts in war spending as a vehicle to fund state programs for human needs and services being eliminated due to state budget shortfalls.

[Co-sponsors of Rep Dennis Kucinich's End the Afghan War resolution: Reps John Conyers, Jr.; (D-MI); Ron E. Paul (R-TX); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); Bob Filner (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Edward Whitfield (R-KY); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL); Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ); Eric Massa (D-NY); and Alan Grayson (D-FL).]

Street Heat

The people have a big agenda for health care, jobs and union rights, immigration reform and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will take the independent grass roots "street heat" of the people to push this agenda through in the face of the Republican's pro-corporate stonewall strategy.

Role of the Party

Our Party can make a significant contribution to the ongoing process of turning our country around by participating with and helping to build the independent role of labor and core forces for a pro-worker agenda in 2010.

We can make a lasting contribution by sinking our roots into election districts and neighborhoods with the labor movement in the struggle for job creation combined with voter registration and mobilization.

We can make a unique contribution with our own candidates for local office who are supported by or come out of independent labor and people's coalitions at the grass roots. These campaigns should be highlighted at our convention to encourage more such initiatives on a regular basis. We should encourage a network of labor and progressive elected and appointed officials and candidates.

We can make a particular contribution by enlarging the readership of the People's World and by bringing new members into our ranks who are ready to fight for immediate relief and understand that the system of capitalism must be changed to achieve a fair, equal and peaceful society.

The frustration and anger in the country can go either way. Our Party is appreciated today for our mature and accurate assessment and strategic vision. We are drawing upon our historical strength in leading and mobilizing militant mass struggles. To the extent that we meet the challenge to turn our analysis into organizing the victims of the crisis and the broad labor and peoples alliance, we will make our best contribution to the 2010 elections and to building a lasting movement and larger Communist Party.

We should enter this important year with confidence in the multi-racial, multi-national working class and people, and with optimism that the possibilities for progress can be realized.

RESOURCES 1. Links 2. Open Seats 1. Links:

2010 Primary Elections by Month (FVAP 2010-11 Voting Assistance Guide)
2010 Primary Elections by State (FVAP)
http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/vaghandout3.pdf

Congressional Progressive Caucus Member List (81)
a href="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164

Congressional Black Caucus Member List (42)
http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.lee.house.gov/member_info.html

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Member List (24)
http://velazquez.house.gov/chc/

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Member List (15)
http://honda.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=762&Itemid=318

Blue Dog Coalition Member List (58)
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

2. Open Seats:

US Senators Not Seeking Re-election
Democrats: Burris-IL, Kaufman-Del-D, Dorgan-ND, Dodd-CT
Republicans: Bond-MO, Brownback-KS, Bunning-KY, Martinez-FL, Gregg-NH, Voinovich-OH, Hutchinson-TX (?)

US Representatives Not Seeking Re-election
Democrats: Davis-AL-07 running for Gov., Meek-FL-17 running for Senate, Abercombie-HI-01 running for Gov, Moore-KS-03 (Blue Dog), Melancon-LA-03 running for Senate (Blue Dog), Hodes-NH-01 running for Senate, Sestak-PA-07 running for Senate, Gordon-TN-06 (Blue Dog), Tanner-TN-08 (Blue Dog), Baird-WA-03)

Republicans: Castle-DE-AL running for Senate, Putnam-FL-12, Deal-GA-09 running for Gov, Kirk-IL-10 running for Senate, Moran-KS-01 running for Senate, Tiahrt-KS-04 running for Senate, Hoekstra-MI-02, Blunt-MO-07 running for Senate, Fallin-OK-05 running for Gov, Gerlach-PA-06 running for Gov, Barrett-SC-03 running for Gov, Wamp-TN-03) running for Gov.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiteafrican/ / CC BY 2.o

Labor and People's Unity and Grass Roots Action Key in 2010

Joelle Fishman — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:04:00 -0500

Report to National Committee 1/9/10

One year ago standing among the diverse, beautiful million-plus outpouring in the nation's capitol to
witness the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the air was filled with both anticipation and
worry. Anticipation for a new direction that the labor and people's outpouring, so key to the election
result, represented. Worry for the presence of the ultra-right / corporate stronghold on government with
three decades of rubble left behind, and their ruthless use of racism and fear to create divisions and
maintain control.

The consolidation and transformation is still underway, from an election outpouring of labor, African
American, Latino, Asian Pacific and all racially oppressed, women and youth -- the core forces -- into
a post-election united organizing force that can win relief from the economic crisis and accomplish
adoption of a bigger people's agenda.
Every attempt and effort has been employed by the corporate right-wing Republicans and extremist
media, with no expense spared, to split apart the people's alliance and peel off Obama's supporters
through division, anger and frustration.
They are utilizing obstructionist tactics and filibuster inside Congress to block legislation, calculating
that voters will blame Democrats for gridlock.
Their goal is to take back the House and Senate in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012.
Despite Republican tactics the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act were all signed into law this
year, Hilda Solis was confirmed as Labor Secretary, Eric Holder was confirmed as Attorney General
and Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to serve on the US Supreme Court as well as many other positive
appointments at all levels of the judiciary and agencies like Labor and HUD.
However, a popular frustration with the pace of change is evident in some quarters. In part, it arises
from the depth of the economic crisis and the desperate conditions that millions are facing.
This frustration reflects reliance on, and high expectations from Democratic Party control of the White
House and a majority in Congress. But pro-worker change cannot be expected to emanate simply from
the White House and Congress. It will take big, bold actions from the grass roots, from labor and
community, to carry the momentum for challenging the banks and corporations and creating the
climate for such legislation to make its way through Congress to the President's desk for signing.
1
The frustration also reflects an underestimation of the ultra-right, of the catastrophic damage from
Bush policies, and what would be entailed to stop and reverse that destruction. The most reactionary
sectors, acting through the Republican Party in Congress and their massive right-wing propaganda
machine have cynically created a phony populism and widespread mis-perception that the Obama
administration is primarily responsible for the policies that favor Wall St. In fact, while the
administration has not challenged the domination of economic policy by finance capital, it is the
Republicans who have blocked even modest efforts at meaningful reform and are blocking more
significant measures to meet peoples needs including health care.
What has slowed down change?. With vicious purpose, every Republican has voted on Party lines
against every progressive measure including against health care reform. Not one Republican voted for
the stimulus package that was passed.
The Democrats, on the other hand, represent a wide political spectrum.
58 of the Democrats in the House were elected from traditionally Republican districts that McCain
carried. These were hard fought seats and part of the broad alliance to defeat the extreme right-wing.
Many of these Democrats voted with Republicans on key legislation.
The 81 Democrats who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus joined with the Black,
Hispanic and Asian American Pacific Caucuses to form the Quad Caucus, which has served as a strong
force to enact, strengthen and improve the Obama agenda.
The biggest challenge is in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to prevent a filibuster. The
Democratic caucus has exactly 60 members including conservative independent Joe Lieberman who,
along with several conservative Democrats, supported Republican filibusters, creating a log jam to
slow down or block passage of any legislation especially health care.
Progress could not have been made this year without the mobilizations that took place demanding
relief, organized in large part by the labor movement and Organizing for America But the
mobilizations were not large enough. They were not on the scale of the groundswell in 2008.
Historically, the labor and people's movement and it's unity role is at the heart of all progressive
change. As Communists, our biggest contribution to the 2010 elections, and to the forward motion of
our country, is building unity and mass action at the grass roots, based in labor and core forces, to
address the crisis, collectively improve living and working conditions, and expand the electorate. The
biggest challenge now is to find the forms by which the anger and frustration can be organized and
mobilized around progressive demands.
Within the broad, multi-class alliance against the right-wing, a strong pro-labor grass roots movement
is needed to project a people's agenda and counter the dangerous and demagogic populism from the
ultra-right. The people's agenda would include a program to create millions of good green jobs along
with health care, housing, education, immigrant rights, peace and climate change.
Republican hopes are to block any major legislative reform and keep opinion turned against Congress.
2
If they are successful, their chances at retaking majority control are considered good. With extremists
in control, the backlash for working people and for the Obama administration would be grim.
The defeat of Democratic Governors in New Jersey and Virginia is a big warning sign. In both cases,
with different specifics, there was a lack of mobilization and a subsequent lack of turnout especially in
heavily Democratic and low income voting districts.
But Republican gains in the Congressional mid-term elections are not a given. In November's special
election, Democrat Bill Owens won in New York's rock-rib Republican 23rd CD after an extremist
Republican backed by Sarah Palin pushed out a more moderate Republican candidate.
The goal must be to defy historical precedent in which the party of the President loses seats in the midterm
election. Losses will make it that much harder to push through the agenda for change that Obama
campaigned on. The "Yes We Can" slogan and outlook must be raised up. We must argue that in these
perilous times, voters can be convinced to vote their basic class interests as they did in 2008 to defeat
the corporate-right-wing Republicans. Building the grass roots mass movements to push for jobs and
immediate relief will be a basic contribution to this unity and to engaging new voters and expanding
the electorate.
With such an approach, it is possible to project increasing the number of progressive and pro-labor
members of Congress in 2010, protect progressive incumbents, and increase the Democratic majority.
Key Races
All 435 House seats and a third of the 100 Senate seats -- 16 Democrats and 19 Republicans -- are up
for election on November 2. The Democratic caucus in the Senate is 60 to 40. The Democratic
majority in the House of Representatives is 257 to 178.
This report is based on the National Journal and other lists of competitive races. It will be added to
and modified with new information and developments.
In addition to Congress, there are 36 Governors plus the State Legislatures up for election. The
significance is magnified by the fact that this is a census year when redistricting will take place, and by
the enormity of state budget deficits in the economic crisis.
The year starts out with the Illinois primary on February 2.
This follows on the remarkable campaign by Rick Nagin for city council in Cleveland, Ohio, which
brought together a broad multi-racial labor-community coalition that continues to function today.
There are similar campaigns for State Legislature in California and Missouri.
The Working Families Party continues to expand independent electoral politics. Working Family
candidates will be on the ballot for State Legislature in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and
South Carolina usually using fusion to run on more than one line. Working Families just formed in
Vermont. The Progressive Party in Vermont is fielding candidates for state officers.
3
The national focus in 2010 is on Congress. In such a hotly contested election year, every open seat is
significant. Open seats provide either an opportunity to make gains, or a challenge to hold on.. A
couple of additional Democratic seats in the Senate could undermine the filibuster tactic being used by
Republicans..The Republicans are spending huge sums to go after every open Senate seat, including
Sen. Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election on January 19.
At least 11 incumbent Senators are not seeking re-election including MO (Bond-R), OH (Voinovich-
R), FL (Martinez-R), IL (Burris-D), CT (Dodd-D)
In the House at least 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans are not seeking re-election. Some are retiring,
most are running for Governor or Senate including Kendrick Meek in Florida.. They include
Democrat: FL-17(Meek), PA-7 (Sestak primary for Senate against Specter), WA-3 (Baird retiring);
Republican: FL-12 (Putnam), IL-10 (Kirk running for Senate, Dan Seals and Julie Hamos primary),
MI-2 (Hoekstra retiring), MO-7 (Blunt running for Senate).
Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and California have top competitive races at every level - for Governor, U
S Senate and U S House. New York, Florida, Maryland and Connecticut have multiple key races, and
most states have at least one key race..
Holding on to Democratic seats in order to keep the majority is an important goal, including recently
won seats in Republican districts. But there is also the goal of improving on the pro-labor content of
the House and Senate. There are some progressive candidates challenging conservative Democrats in
the primaries. Peace candidate Marcy Winograd is challenging Jane Harman in California's 17th CD
on a program of green job creation..On a case by case basis, we should encourage labor and
progressive primary candidates while taking caution not to close doors for the general election
depending on the outcome of the primary.
At the end of the report, links are included to the election calendar by state and by month, and to the
member lists of the Quad Congressional caucuses and the Blue Dog Coalition.
Legislative Struggles
The inspiration and urgency that created the groundswell for Obama's election can hopefully be ignited
in response to the dire situation working people and young people find themselves in. The five point
jobs program of the AFL-CIO and Jobs for America Now must be brought to life with mobilizations,
actions, outreach and education against the fear tactics of the extreme right-wing.
The ultra-right has relied on big lies and racism to create confusion. One is that government should
not have a role in guaranteeing a good quality of life for everyone.
That argument is paired with the idea that government programs for people's needs are responsible for
a growing deficit. This is especially demagogic as it was during the Bush administration that the
deficit exploded with huge cuts in taxes for the rich and an escalating military budget.
4
Health Care
The first target in the health care battle were seniors who were told that government "death panels"
would decide of they could get care.. It took the labor movement retirees organizations to set the
record straight that Medicare is in fact a government program and expansion would benefit everyone.
Women were targeted with the attempt to turn back the clock on abortion rights through the health care
bill, as a way to splinter the coalition and block the legislation. Some within the faith based
community stepped forward and rejected these litmus tests..
The bill being crafted now by Congressional leadership is expected to come out for vote by the end of
the month. The fight for the best possible bill, drawing from the House version to address big
problems in the Senate version, continues as we meet. Wednesday, January 13 is a national call-in day
to Congress. The AFL-CIO message is for health care reform that:does not tax workers' health care
benefits; requires employers to pay their fair share; controls health care costs and the best way to do
that is by creating a public health care insurance plan option. Messages are also being sent to
Congress to protect women's reproductive rights and end waiting limits for immigrants, and the right
of states to carry out a public option.
While there is debate over the benefit of a weak bill, the fact that over 30 million people will get
coverage cannot be dismissed. Passage will constitute a setback for the corporate ultra-right who do
not want any bill, and will also create a more favorable terrain for the 2010 elections. The fight for
health care as a basic human right including single payer and a national health service continues and
builds on the work of this year.
Jobs and EFCA
Before adjournment in December, the Jobs for Main Street Act passed the House 216-212. Its purpose
is to create or save jobs by redirecting $75 billion from TARP funds (Wall St.) to highways and transit,
school renovation, hiring teachers, police, and firefighters, small business, job training and affordable
housing.
The struggle for good, green job creation including public works jobs targeted to neighborhoods in
greatest need, is moving onto center stage. Beyond job creation is the need for an economy that is
restructured in the interests of working people.
The urgency for jobs is underscored by growing poverty. Six million people -- one out of every 50 --
lives in a household with no income except food stamps. They are among the half of the unemployed
who do not receive unemployment benefits.
Extension of unemployment benefits, a targeted second stimulus and direct government green jobs
creation is the program of the national coalition of labor, civil rights, faith based and environmental
organizations which is launching a grass roots organizing campaign.
Mobilization at the grass roots around the demand for jobs can build unity and support for government
5
job creation and for expansion of workers' rights including the right to form a union and passage of the
Employee Free Choice Act..
Our main pre-convention discussion document, "No easy road to the future -- but we'll get there" by
Sam Webb includes a section "Jobs and Immediate Relief" that lends itself to a nationally coordinated
campaign at the district and club level to strengthen our ties with the multi-racial, multi-national
working class, and join with labor and core forces to help organize the victims of the crisis and register
and involve young people and other new voters.
[Link to list of organization in the Jobs for America Now coalition]
Immigration reform
Immigrant rights organizations have pressed for reform since the election of President Obama. There
is organized pressure for immigration reform to be taken up in Congress by March before the heat of
election season. Mass lobbying campaigns are already underway around HR 4321the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform for America's Security And Prosperity (CIR ASAP) introduced by Rep. Solomon
Ortiz with 92 co-sponsors including the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus joined by the Quad
Caucus.. Labor and many leading immigrant groups are in support. A Senate version of the bill is
expected to be introduced this month which probably will be more restrictive. If complete reform does
not get passed, it is possible that some elements to relieve the situation of the 12 million without
documents will be acted on. There is growing recognition that naturalized immigrants and the children
of immigrants are voting in large numbers and can make the difference in key races. We have updated
our Immigrant Rights principles and factsheet. It will be posted in English and Spanish on the CPUSA
website by the end of January.
[Link to HR 4321: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04321:@@@P ]
Military budget
Funding to escalate the number of troops to Afghanistan is meeting opposition within Congress.. In
December, a group of 12 co-sponsors including five Republicans, signed onto Rep Dennis Kucinich's
Privileged Resolution to End the Afghan War. The resolution links the needs of 15 million
unemployed to the fact that "the country cannot continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on
disastrous wars." The Jobs not War theme provides the basis for expanding public opposition to
increased troop levels and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time mobilizing in
favor of immediate job creation..Congressional hearings are anticipated in February and March to
discuss the impact of military spending on jobs creation and other domestic needs, linking to the need
for a green jobs, demilitarized economy. Allocations for the military budget, including nuclear
weapons, are now up to 55% of all discretionary spending. In some states, with the help of National
Priorities Project, initiatives are being taken to call for cuts in war spending as a vehicle to fund state
programs for human needs and services being eliminated due to state budget shortfalls.
[Co-sponsors of Rep Dennis Kucinich's End the Afghan War resolution: Reps John Conyers, Jr.; (DMI);
Ron E. Paul (R-TX); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); Bob Filner (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC);
6
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Edward Whitfield (R-KY); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Timothy V. Johnson (RIL);
Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ); Eric Massa (D-NY); and Alan Grayson (D-FL).]
Street Heat
The people have a big agenda for health care, jobs and union rights, immigration reform and ending
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will take the independent grass roots "street heat" of the people to
push this agenda through in the face of the Republican's pro-corporate stonewall strategy.
Role of the Party
Our Party can make a significant contribution to the ongoing process of turning our country around by
participating with and helping to build the independent role of labor and core forces for a pro-worker
agenda in 2010..
We can make a lasting contribution by sinking our roots into election districts and neighborhoods with
the labor movement in the struggle for job creation combined with voter registration and mobilization.
We can make a unique contribution with our own candidates for local office who are supported by or
come out of independent labor and people's coalitions at the grass roots. These campaigns should be
highlighted at our convention to encourage more such initiatives on a regular basis. We should
encourage a network of labor and progressive elected and appointed officials and candidates.
We can make a particular contribution by enlarging the readership of the People's World and by
bringing new members into our ranks who are ready to fight for immediate relief and understand that
the system of capitalism must be changed to achieve a fair, equal and peaceful society.
The frustration and anger in the country can go either way. Our Party is appreciated today for our
mature and accurate assessment and strategic vision. We are drawing upon our historical strength in
leading and mobilizing militant mass struggles. To the extent that we meet the challenge to turn our
analysis into organizing the victims of the crisis and the broad labor and peoples alliance, we will
make our best contribution to the 2010 elections and to building a lasting movement and larger
Communist Party.
We should enter this important year with confidence in the multi-racial, multi-national working class
and people, and with optimism that the possibilities for progress can be realized.
7
RESOURCES
1. Links
2. Open Seats
1. Links:
2010 Primary Elections by Month (FVAP 2010-11 Voting Assistance Guide)
2010 Primary Elections by State (FVAP)
http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/vaghandout3.pdf
Congressional Progressive Caucus Member List (81)
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?
ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164
Congressional Black Caucus Member List (42)
http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.lee.house.gov/member_info.html
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Member List (24)
http://velazquez.house.gov/chc/
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Member List (15)
http://honda.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=762&Itemid=318
Blue Dog Coalition Member List (58)
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html
2. Open Seats:
US Senators Not Seeking Re-election
Democrats: Burris-IL, Kaufman-Del-D, Dorgan-ND, Dodd-CT
Republicans: Bond-MO, Brownback-KS, Bunning-KY, Martinez-FL, Gregg-NH, Voinovich-OH,
Hutchinson-TX (?)
US Representatives Not Seeking Re-election
Democrats: Davis-AL-07 running for Gov., Meek-FL-17 running for Senate, Abercombie-HI-01
running for Gov, Moore-KS-03 (Blue Dog), Melancon-LA-03 running for Senate (Blue Dog), Hodes-
NH-01 running for Senate, Sestak-PA-07 running for Senate, Gordon-TN-06 (Blue Dog), Tanner-TN-
08 (Blue Dog), Baird-WA-03)
Republicans: Castle-DE-AL running for Senate, Putnam-FL-12, Deal-GA-09 running for Gov, Kirk-
IL-10 running for Senate, Moran-KS-01 running for Senate, Tiahrt-KS-04 running for Senate,
Hoekstra-MI-02, Blunt-MO-07 running for Senate, Fallin-OK-05 running for Gov, Gerlach-PA-06
running for Gov, Barrett-SC-03 running for Gov, Wamp-TN-03) running for Gov.
8
9

Welcome to the New CPUSA.org!

CPUSA webmaster — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:45:00 -0500

The National Committee of the Communist Party USA is proud and excited to introduce to you our exciting new website. We hope this new modern website will serve us well in the 21st Century with cutting edge tools and professional look and feel.

The website is still a work in progress and some of our new features are not quite ready for use. Things are still under construction so come back frequently to watch for new developments, sections and updates. One new feature will be a Spanish-language version of the website for the meany Spanish-seaking communities in the United States. Our Partido Communista section will roll out in the weeks to come. Another new sectin is a members-only section for discussion and resources for members of the Communist Party nationwide.

Visit our site frequently for updates and to see the latest new features. And take a moment to let us know what you think at cpusa@cpusa.org.

Health Care - The time for a united push is NOW!

CPUSA Political Action Commission — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:24:00 -0500

Action Memo from Political Action Commission, CPUSA

Don't be fooled by rumors and news clips that the health care fight is over and done with. One of the most important parts of the process is just about to get under way. Once the Senate votes on it's bill, that goes to conference committee along with the House bill passed earlier. All cards are on the table, some good that must be kept or expanded, some bad that must be stripped out.

Richard Turmka, president of the AFL-CIO issued a statement after a closed door national board meeting urging mobilization of pressure on Congress for a bill that is affordable, covers everyone, regulates the insurance companies, and taxes the wealthy, not individuals with health care benefits.

Last week was a turmoil, as the Senate twisted and turned eventually dropping both the public option and Medicare eligibility at age 55, while including taxation of benefits, which would hurt union members with health care coverage in their contracts the most. But the Senate bill is not the end of the road. That is why the right-wing has been so bold about trying to stall Senate action.

Late Saturday night, Sen. Tom Harkin said, "This is not a mansion. It is a starter house," that can be added to and improved. Last week, Rep. Grijalva, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus said that the fight for progressive principles must go on to get the measures included in the House bill into the final bill.

The answer is to up the ante and make voices heard with phone calls, letters and public statements from community health centers, from work sites, from neighborhood gatherings, from schools, to Congress and the White House to counter the high financed blitz by insurance and pharma corporations.

If the experiences of the recent months have taught anything, it is when labor, racially oppressed, women and youth are not sufficiently organized and mobilized, the right-wing will step in. Support for public option and universal coverage must be more and more united and visible to get the strongest possible bill passed. What happens in this fight sets the stage for 2010 elections and the huge battle to shift the balance of forces more toward working people, creating the conditions to improve what is won now.

Below are links to four documents to understand more deeply the process underway:

For up-to-date news and analysis visit peoplesworld.org Please circulate.

Political Action Commission, CPUSA

Reference Materials

1. From a memo by Health Care for America Now:

"As you might know if you've been reading the newspapers, health care reform has had a tumultuous week. I want to make sure you had up-to-date information on what's happening, as well as our take on recent events.

Where are we now?

In the last week, the public health insurance option Majority Leader Reid put into his merged bill was stripped out, and a "compromise" allowing people over the age of 55 to buy into Medicare if they chose was added and then also stripped to appease Senators Joe Lieberman.^1,2 The leadership and the White House accepted these changes in order to move forward, and they have introduced a bill in the Senate that reflects this.^3,4

The compromise, which took away the best way to truly hold the insurance companies accountable, provoked an angry reaction from health reform supporters.⁵ Frankly, we're angry, too. The new bill released today does include a number of new, tougher insurance reforms, including a patients' bill of rights, restrictions on how much insurers can spend on administration and profit, and an attempt to hold down insurance premium increases.

Right now, the Senate bill looks like it will pass the Senate next week and move into conference with the House, which has a much better bill that it passed last month.⁶

What needs to be fixed?

The Senate bill, as it stands now, has major problems that need to be fixed. We need to make sure that the final bill that goes to President Obama's desk provides good, affordable coverage and holds insurance companies accountable.

Here's what must be fixed:

1. Make health care affordable
The Senate bill does not make health care affordable at work, and would encourage employers to hire part-time workers and offer bare-bones benefits. We need the final legislation to do what the House bill does - require all but the smallest employers to contribute a fair amount to good coverage for their workers.

And for those people who are self-employed or in between jobs, both bills need improvement on affordability. The Senate bill doesn't do enough to make coverage affordable for low-and-moderate income families and the House falls short for middle-income families. The final bill should combine the best of both.

2. Hold insurance companies accountable
The final bill must include strong consumer protections and insurance regulations for all consumers, and give the federal government responsibility for running the new insurance marketplaces. Generally, the House bill is better, but we need Congress to pick the strongest provisions from both bills to be sure that everyone with insurance benefits from strong consumer protections.

The final bill should also give us the choice of a national public health insurance option that's available on day one.

3. Fairly finance health care reform
The Senate bill taxes the health care benefits of millions of workers to pay for health reform. There's a better way to pay for health reform that won't raise premiums and out of pocket costs. By contrast, the House bill asks those who can most afford to pay their fair share to finance reform, as President Obama promised during his campaign.

The final bill should ask the richest to pay their fair share for reform, instead of taxing our health care benefits.

What's next?

The reason that conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson and Independent Joe Lieberman have been able to hold the bill hostage to their demands is that Republicans have insisted on filibustering the bill every step of the way, requiring all 60 Senators who are part of the Democratic caucus to agree. That will continue this week, with the next 60-vote motion happening on Monday and perhaps two more 60-votes motions occurring during the week.

After the Senate passes their health care bill, it will head into "conference" with the House bill. There, leaders from each branch of Congress, as well as the White House, will work to resolve the differences between the two bills and come up with something that can pass and be sent to the President's desk.

Conference is an opportunity to stand up for the three priorities listed above, and make sure the final bill guarantees us quality, affordable health care, with the choice of a public health insurance option. The legislation that comes out of the conference will be sent to both houses of Congress for a final vote, and will require a majority in the House and 60 votes one more time in the Senate.

What can be done?

In the coming days, we'll be asking you to let your Senators, member of Congress and President Obama hear from you. We'll be rolling out with a campaign to stand up for the fixes we must see to get the best bill possible to the President's desk. We'll be asking you to take part, raise your voice, and help us fight for what we believe in.

It's been a tough week for health care reformers, there's no question. But we need to get ready, because it's not over yet.

As President Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, and difficulty." This last week has been painful and difficult, and there's a lot of effort ahead. We'll all be taking this time over the holidays to recharge for the coming fight.

As long as you're fighting with us, we've got a chance to win this thing and finish reform right.

Thank you, happy holidays, and onwards!"

To your health,

Levana Layendecker
Health Care for America Now

1. Dems Make Deal to Drop Public Option - CBS
2. Lieberman Tells Reid To His Face: I'll Vote Against Current Health Care Bill - Huffington Post
3. White House to Harry Reid: Cut deal with Joe Lieberman - Politco
4. With Nelson on board, health-care bill could pass by Christmas - Washington Post
5. Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House - New York Times
6. A merry Christmas; Senate eyes Dec. 24 vote on healthcare reform legislation - The Hill

2. From a memo by Rekindling Reform:

Either offer everyone an opportunity to enroll in a real public health insurance program (not merely a co-op or private nonprofit plan) or else takes out the individual mandate.
Enable access to Medicare coverage by persons age 55 to 64.
Do away with the Stupak amendment and do not disturb existing provisions governing abortion.
Require community-rated premiums for all plans and cap out-of-pocket costs at affordable levels.
Prohibit both annual and lifetime caps on services received.
Rely largely on higher taxes on the wealthy for the necessary financing and don't tax health coverage.
Require insurance companies to spend at least 90% of premiums they receive for patient care.

3. From a memo by the National immigration Law Center:

We are in urgent need for organizations to call the offices of Senator Reid and Senator Baucus NOW with the following message:

"We urge you to include the Menendez amendment, SA 2991, in the manager's amendment to HR 3590. This amendment helps restore fairness to our health care system, enabling states to remove a harsh five-year waiting period that prevents legal immigrants from accessing Medicaid."

Phone numbers are:

Majority Leader Reid: 202-224-3542
Senator Baucus: 202-224-2651

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragesoss/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Communist Party vice chairman speaks at University of Missouri

Columbia Missourian — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:48:00 -0500

Excerpted from the Columbia Missourian

COLUMBIA — Jarvis Tyner, executive vice chairman of the Communist Party USA, spoke at MU on Thursday and said the election of President Barack Obama opens the door for the left wing, which he feels has allowed itself to be pushed to the sidelines and overcome with progress-impeding cynicism, to mobilize.

"He's only the beginning," Tyner said. "I think he's a transitional president. I think somebody else is going to come in and take it even further." The Communist Party USA

MU students protest the speech of Jarvis Tyner, executive vice chair of the Communist Party USA, with a mock gulag labor camp set up in Speaker's Circle at MU on Thursday.

Tyner spoke to an audience of about 70 people at MU's Ellis Auditorium. He focused on the transitional phase he feels the United States is in because of Obama's election.

Although the president is neither a communist nor socialist, his administration marks the country's movement away from the right-wing governments that have been dominant in the U.S. since the Reagan administration, Tyner said.

He said that while the Democratic Party is not without blame, the Republican leadership has been the source of the nation's problems that include an increase in poverty, a ruined economy, the continuation of global warming, impeded scientific research and the destruction of public schools by No Child Left Behind.

Tyner said he and his party are not completely satisfied with the work Obama has done since taking office, listing the need to withdraw troops more quickly from Iraq, for initiatives to end nuclear weapons and to re-establish trading relations with Cuba...

Read the full article at the Columbia Missourian