Initial Web Comments on ‘Nature, Role, and Work’

BY:pww@pww.org| March 7, 2007

Solzhenitsyn and Socialist Democracy
Michael Wood 03/05/2007 21:42

Comrades!

Comrade Webb wrote that: ‘…in the American mind, the idea that socialism and democracy are incompatible has widespread currency. And this perception cant be ascribed solely to ruling-class propaganda. Socialist societies have had democratic shortcomings, too often major ones.’

Solzhenitsyn and state-monopoly capitalist propaganda, not the former socialist countries, are responsible for the misperceptions concerning socialism. I also credit the class role played by professional anti-Sovietologists and historians such as Robert Conquest in spreading slander about socialism.

I warmly believe that Comrade Webb’s discussion paper does not sufficiently stress the positive features of socialism as it existed in the former Soviet Union. I am of the view that our working-class does not have sufficient access to working-class and socialist sources of information about the U.S.S.R. Our challenge is to educate working-class people about the historic socialist achievements made by our class.

Capitalists and reactionaries such as Solzhenitsyn have always screamed that socialist societies have major democratic shortcomings. Capitulation to anti-communist lies and propaganda will not build our Party.

We should, in the tradition of Gus Hall, defend socialism as it actually existed.

I wish to share a few words by former national CPUSA leader James E. Jackson about Solzhenitsyn and socialist democracy in the Soviet Union:

‘…the question of Solzhenitsyn. Fifty-two years of socialism and you’ve still got a Solzhenitsyn. How do you explain that? We must not shrink from this stubborn fact. But we must put the exception in its proper proportion and deal with it because revolutionary and social development is an uneven process. In Solzhenitsyn you have a tailist whose consciousness lags a whole era of time behind social development. He’s still speaking in praise of the Czar. In another period, when the Revolution was hard pressed, and had no time for such foolishness, he would have been up against a wall. They wouldn’t have bothered with him. It’s affirmation of the triumph of democracy that the ravings of this pawn of bourgeois propagandists evokes no alarm in the Soviet Union.’ (James Jackson, ‘A Talk to Teachers of Marxism’, collected in ‘Highlights of a Fighting History: 60 Years of the Communist Party USA’, 1979, International Publishers)

RE: Solzhenitsyn and Socialist Democracy
John Bollman 03/05/2007 21:12
>
> Comrades!
>
> Comrade Webb wrote that: ‘…in the American mind, the idea
> that socialism and democracy are incompatible has widespread
> currency. And this perception cant be ascribed solely to
> ruling-class propaganda. Socialist societies have had
> democratic shortcomings, too often major ones.’
>
> Solzhenitsyn and state-monopoly capitalist propaganda, not
> the former socialist countries, are responsible for the
> misperceptions concerning socialism. I also credit the
> class role played by professional anti-Sovietologists and
> historians such as Robert Conquest in spreading slander
> about socialism.
>
> I warmly believe that Comrade Webb’s discussion paper does
> not sufficiently stress the positive features of socialism
> as it existed in the former Soviet Union. I am of the view
> that our working-class does not have sufficient access to
> working-class and socialist sources of information about
> the U.S.S.R. Our challenge is to educate working-class
> people about the historic socialist achievements made by
> our class.
>
> Capitalists and reactionaries such as Solzhenitsyn have
> always screamed that socialist societies have major
> democratic shortcomings. Capitulation to anti-communist
> lies and propaganda will not build our Party.
>
> We should, in the tradition of Gus Hall, defend socialism
> as it actually existed.
>
> I wish to share a few words by former national CPUSA leader
> James E. Jackson about Solzhenitsyn and socialist democracy
> in the Soviet Union:
>
> ‘…the question of Solzhenitsyn. Fifty-two years of
> socialism and you’ve still got a Solzhenitsyn. How do you
> explain that? We must not shrink from this stubborn fact.
> But we must put the exception in its proper proportion and
> deal with it because revolutionary and social development
> is an uneven process. In Solzhenitsyn you have a tailist
> whose consciousness lags a whole era of time behind social
> development. He’s still speaking in praise of the Czar. In
> another period, when the Revolution was hard pressed, and
> had no time for such foolishness, he would have been up
> against a wall. They wouldn’t have bothered with him. It’s
> affirmation of the triumph of democracy that the ravings of
> this pawn of bourgeois propagandists evokes no alarm in the
> Soviet Union.’ (James Jackson, ‘A Talk to Teachers of
> Marxism’, collected in ‘Highlights of a Fighting History:
> 60 Years of the Communist Party USA’, 1979, International
> Publishers)
>
>
Comrade.

I am in complete agreement with you on the Soviet Union. We should praise them for their gains not focus only on shortcomings. The working class of the Soviet Union accomplished more than anything we have had in the US.

I have also noticed that although the party names the DPRK as one of 5 socialist states, it shy’s away from reporting on anything but the nuclear crisis.

We should support all nations who have overthrown their capitalist class, no matter what our disagreements may be. I hope in the future that CPUSA sends delegations to DPRK and Laos and also reports on the political and economic situation in the DPRK.

Dogmatism and Sectarianism?
Michael Wood 03/04/2007 14:41

Comrades!

Comrade Webb wrote that: ‘I would argue that dogmatism and sectarianism, traceable in no small measure to the radical movement of the 1960s that lacked a working-class political and ideological anchor, have been a much larger problem in our Party and the left at the level of practice and theory than is acknowledged.’

I am perplexed by Comrade Webb’s statement. Marxist-Leninists oppose ‘dogmatism’ and ‘sectarianism’ while proudly upholding and defending Marxism-Leninism.

I, for one, believe that we should abstain from slandering working-class members of the Communist Party U.S.A. who value Gus Hall and his revolutionary working-class legacy.

I warmly share another Lenin quotation:

‘It [Marxism] made clear the real task of a revolutionary socialist party: not to draw up plans for refashioning society, not to preach to the capitalists and their hangers-on about improving the lot of the workers, not to hatch conspiracies, but to organize the class struggle of the proletariat and to guide this struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the organization of a socialist society…’ (Lenin, ‘Our Programme’, 1899)

What a Communist Party is Good For
Michael Wood 03/04/2007 13:48
Comrades!

I respectfully point out that, along with the lessons of Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’, revisionism has always attacked the independent role of the Communist Party. I, as a friend, apologize for another ‘long’ post. I believe, however, that you will find it worth your time to read.

I warmly share extracts from a Soviet book about a Marxist Party:

‘THE MARXIST PARTY AS THE ORGANIZER AND LEADER OF THE PROLETARIAT’S CLASS STRUGGLE.

‘Only the political party of the proletariat is capable of giving competent leadership to the working people’s struggle and properly combining all its forms. The party’s role is particularly great in the imperialist era where, owing to the extreme aggravation of capitalist contradictions, the socialist revolution becomes a direct, practical task.

‘The parties of the Second International who favored reforms and compromise with the bourgeoisie were unable to provide proper leadership to the proletarian movement in the new historical conditions. A party of a new type, a revolutionary Marxist party was needed and such a party was founded by Lenin.

‘The Marxist party is the advanced revolutionary detachment of the proletariat, it’s vanguard. As the highest form of organization of the proletariat, it rallies together all its other organizations (trade unions, co-operatives, etc.), gives them a political leadership and concentrates their efforts on the single goal of overthrowing capitalism and building socialist society. ‘By educating the workers’ party,’ Lenin wrote, ‘Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all toilers and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.’ (Lenin, ‘State and Revolution’, 1917)

‘The Marxist party is capable of fulfilling its mission as the vanguard, the advanced detachment of the working class and leader of the entire people because it is equipped with scientific Marxist theory, knowledge of the laws of social development and ability to apply these laws in practice for the revolutionary transformation of society.

‘As the advanced, politically conscious detachment of the proletariat, the party constantly develops the people’s socialist consciousness and protects the working class from the influence of corrupting bourgeois ideology; the party wages an implacable struggle against any attempt to falsify or ‘revise’ Marxism and it develops Marxist theory in the light of the latest scientific achievements and the practical experience of society.

‘The Marxist party is the advanced, conscious and organized detachment of the working class bound by a common desire to apply the revolutionary ideas of Marxism-Leninism in practice. The party abhors all kinds of opportunists who seek to destroy its unity, to undermine it from within and render it incapable of leading the proletariat’s class struggle.

‘The Marxist party is a genuine people’s party, it unites the finest representatives of the people and it is bound by thousands of threads with the working people. By expressing the people’s innermost aspirations and selflessly defending their vital interests, the party enjoys their boundless confidence and support. The Marxist party draws its invincible strength and support from its close ties with the people. Revolutionary and genuine people’s parties…[were]…typified by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the fraternal Communist and Workers’ parties in the other socialist countries which organize socialist and communist construction and also the Marxist parties in the capitalist countries which inspire and lead the people’s struggle against imperialism and colonialism, for peace, democracy and socialism.’ (V. Afanasyev, ‘Marxist Philosophy’, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1980?)

Something to consider
Douglas Eckhoff 03/04/2007 09:49

‘It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is at its height, when everybody is joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the fashion, and sometimes even out of careerist motives. After its victory, the proletariat has to make most strenuous efforts, to suffer the pains of martyrdom, one might say, to ‘liberate’ itself from such pseudo revolutionaries. It is far more difficult – and of far greater value – to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist, to be able to champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda, agitation and organization) in non-revolutionary bodies and often in downright reactionary bodies, in a non-revolutionary situation among masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary methods of action. To be able to find, to probe for, to correctly determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will lead the masses to the real, last, decisive, and great revolutionary struggle – such is the task of Communists in Western Europe and America today.’ – V.I. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder

RE: Something to consider
Michael Wood 03/04/2007 13:14
>
> ‘It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution
> has already broken out and is at its height, when everybody
> is joining the revolution just because they are carried
> away, because it is the fashion, and sometimes even out of
> careerist motives. After its victory, the proletariat has
> to make most strenuous efforts, to suffer the pains of
> martyrdom, one might say, to ‘liberate’ itself from such
> pseudo revolutionaries. It is far more difficult – and
> of far greater value – to be a revolutionary when the
> conditions for direct, open, really mass and really
> revolutionary struggle do not yet exist, to be able to
> champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda,
> agitation and organization) in non-revolutionary bodies and
> often in downright reactionary bodies, in a
> non-revolutionary situation among masses who are incapable
> of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary
> methods of action. To be able to find, to probe for, to
> correctly determine the specific path or the particular
> turn of events that will lead the masses to the real, last,
> decisive, and great revolutionary struggle – such is the
> task of Communists in Western Europe and America
> today.’ – V.I. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile
> Disorder
>

Comrades!

What beautiful–and too often forgotten– words by Lenin! Thank you, Comrade Doug, for sharing them with us!

Electoral Involvement
Douglas Eckhoff 03/04/2007 10:20
Comrade Michael thoughtfully shared with us the following:

I…believe that Marxist-Leninists should be concerned with defeating the ultra-right (the most reactionary sectors of the transnational monopolies). Voting against the ultra-right is not necessarily a betrayal of the interests of the working class. I warmly share an extract from the program of the Communist Party USA:

‘Defeat of the ultra-right in the political/electoral arena will substantially weaken the most reactionary sector of the monopolies. In doing so, their defeat objectively weakens all monopolies and capitalism as a whole…

‘The Communist Party’s approach to people’s electoral politics is a basic aspect of our view that the current stage of struggle requires an all-people’s front to defeat the ultra-right. This is an essential strategy for this historical period, not just a temporary shift in tactics…Without first defeating the ultra-right section of monopoly, the working class and it’s allies cannot proceed to radically curb the power of the monopolies as a whole.’ (Communist Party USA, ‘The Road to Socialism: Program of the Communist Party USA’, 2005)

I warmly point out that no one should understand this to mean that Marxist-Leninists should have a hot and steamy love affair with the Democratic Party. I believe that Communists who are uncritical of the Democratic Party are guilty of opportunism. I believe that Marxists who bash others for not voting Democrat are not correctly working in the interests of eventual political independence from the capitalist parties. Communists, however, realize that there is a difference between the two parties of state-monopoly capitalism and that this difference may provide an opening for strengthening the class struggle. The Program of the Communist Party USA states that:

‘While the Democratic and Republican parties are both capitalist parties, they are not identical. The ultra-right currently dominates the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is not only its national leadership; it has been the main mechanism used by African-American and Latino communities to gain representation, as well as the main mechanism used to elect labor, progressives, and even Left activists to public office, especially at the local level. There exists an internal struggle within the Democratic Party between centrist forces who collaborate with the right wing, and centrist forces opposed to the right wing. Those opposed to the right wing are often willing to align with progressive elements that seek to defeat the program of the ultra-right. There are struggles within both the Democratic Party and within the labor and people’s movements that are reflective of the overall struggle to gain political independence from corporate dominance. Any serious strategy that hopes to win millions of people to a more advanced political program must relate to these struggles.’ (Communist Party USA, ‘The Road to Socialism’, 2005)

—————————————

In that context comrade we are in 100% agreement. As usual you are able move beyond ‘cut and paste’ poltical posturing and get right to the core of the matter.

Thank you for helping me clarify my own thought process.

As always, in solidarity!

Revisionism, Marxism-Leninism and our Constitution
Michael Wood 03/02/2007 21:50

Comrades!

I shall share new thoughts after these brief paragraphs which define revisionism one more time.

I believe that since the word revisionism has been used repeatedly in the conversation about Comrade Webb’s discussion paper that, in the interests of Marxist-Leninist education, a definition of revisionism and a few words about it may once again be in order before I share further comments:

‘Revisionism is an opportunist trend in the worker’s movement which is hostile to Marxism-Leninism, and the intent of which is to revise and reconsider the Marxist-Leninist theory. Revisionists reject the scientifically founded tenets on the inevitability of the class struggle in antagonistic society and question the significance of the socialist revolution and the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of rule by the working class in the transition period from capitalism to socialism.’ (‘What Are Classes and the Class Struggle’, Progress Publishers, 1986)

Comrades!

I warmly suggest reading V.I. Lenin’s essays against revisionism: ‘Marxism and Revisionism’ (1908) and ‘Differences in the European Labor Movement’ (1910).

I warmly suggest that Marxist-Leninists must oppose revisionism. The history of the Communist Party U.S.A. reveals the damage done to the Marxist-Leninist movement by the revisionist ‘Communist’ Earl Browder before he was correctly expelled from the party.

Comrades!

I warmly, before I proceed to bring reader’s attention to the rights and duties of members which are outlined in the Constitution of the Communist Party USA, share a definition of Marxism-Leninism from the glossary of Gus Hall’s excellent book ‘Working Class USA’:

‘MARXISM-LENINISM: the term given to the science pioneered by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and further developed by V.I. Lenin. It is the science of the working class that sees human history moving in the direction of socialism and finally to communism.’ (Gus Hall, ‘Working Class USA’, 1986, International Publishers)

As outlined in Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Communist Party USA, every member has the right to ‘critically evaluate the work of all leading committees and individual leaders, irrespective of the positions they hold, provided it is done in appropriate Party meetings, conferences, conventions or other Party bodies. No one may interfere with this right of critical evaluation.’

I warmly point out that we’d agree that criticism alone is not enough. I believe that Marxist-Leninists also have a responsibility to build and strengthen the Marxist-Leninist character of the CPUSA. We are collectively responsible to promote and develop both individual and group Marxist-Leninist educationals using actual Marxist-Leninist texts.

We should recruit new members to the CPUSA and distribute the ‘People’s Weekly World’. I personally appreciated the emphasis that Comrade Webb placed upon building the Party and the ‘People’s Weekly World’.

Section 2 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Communist Party USA stresses that members must be Communist activists. It states:

‘A member shall strive to attend all club meetings. Members shall continually strive to improve their political knowledge and their understanding of Marxism-Leninism, to take part in the discussion of Party policy, to initiate activities, to work of the aims and policies of the Party, and to seek to win new members to its ranks. They shall also read, circulate and help improve Party publications. All members shall circulate the press and make work with the press central to their mass activity.’

RE: Revisionism, Marxism-Leninism and our Constitution
Douglas Eckhoff 03/02/2007 22:29
Speaking of the Constitution – regarding Article VI Section 7 on the Rights and Duties of Members where it states:

‘All members who are eligible shall register and vote in ALL (emphasis mine) publlic elections wherever possibe.’

Now, unless you live in a fairly progressive state your choice is between two capitalists! Is the party dictating that we MUST vote for a lesser of two evils? That a progressive millionaire capitalists is that much different than a reactionary one?
In my humble opinion, this is silliness and certainly not a Marxist-Leninist way of thinking. To use plain English it appears to clearly be a case of revisionism and Right opportunism. If we wish to be the vanguard party, let’s stop the endorsements of pseudo-progressive democrats and work to educate the masses …let’s work toward revolution and not just be another party of democratic-socialst posers.

If we are marxists-leninists, let’s see what Comrade Lenin had to say:

Lenin on Elections (from State and Revolution):

‘To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people in parliament — such is the real essence of bourgeois parlimentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.’ (chapter 3, sec 3)

‘People think they have taken quite an extraordinarily bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.’ (chapter 4, sec 5)

But we seem to playing right into the bourgeois state’s hand. They have us right where they want us.

RE: Revisionism, Marxism-Leninism and our Constitution
Michael Wood 03/03/2007 12:49

>Douglas shared a Lenin quote with us: ‘Lenin on Elections (from State and Revolution):
>
> ‘To decide once every few years which member of the ruling
> class is to repress and crush the people in parliament —
> such is the real essence of bourgeois parlimentarism, not
> only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also
> in the most democratic republics.’ (chapter 3, sec 3)’

Comrades!

Comrade Webb wrote, with strong words, that ‘our hopes were realized’ by the results of the recent election:

‘Most of us had hoped and believed that the House would change hands, but few predicted that the Senate would too. That seemed a little bit of a stretch, an instance of political overreaching and wishful thinking, something that we have learned through bitter experience not to do in recent years.

‘But not this time! Our hopes were realized as millions expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the war, corruption, mounting economic difficulties, the administrations incompetence, and other issues.’

I warmly believe that ‘our hopes will be realized’ only by the victory of socialism. The election results, while positive, deserve less exuberant words from Marxist-Leninists.

RE: Revisionism, Marxism-Leninism and our Constitution
Michael Wood 03/03/2007 17:40
> Speaking of the Constitution – regarding Article VI Section
> 7 on the Rights and Duties of Members where it states:
>
> ‘All members who are eligible shall register and vote in
> ALL (emphasis mine) publlic elections wherever possibe.’
>
> Now, unless you live in a fairly progressive state your
> choice is between two capitalists! Is the party dictating
> that we MUST vote for a lesser of two evils? That a
> progressive millionaire capitalists is that much different
> than a reactionary one?
> In my humble opinion, this is silliness and certainly not a
> Marxist-Leninist way of thinking. To use plain English it
> appears to clearly be a case of revisionism and Right
> opportunism. If we wish to be the vanguard party, let’s
> stop the endorsements of pseudo-progressive democrats and
> work to educate the masses …let’s work toward revolution
> and not just be another party of democratic-socialst
> posers.
>
> If we are marxists-leninists, let’s see what Comrade Lenin
> had to say:
>
> Lenin on Elections (from State and Revolution):
>
> ‘To decide once every few years which member of the ruling
> class is to repress and crush the people in parliament —
> such is the real essence of bourgeois parlimentarism, not
> only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also
> in the most democratic republics.’ (chapter 3, sec 3)
>
> ‘People think they have taken quite an extraordinarily bold
> step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in
> hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic.
> In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for
> the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the
> democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.’ (chapter
> 4, sec 5)
>
> But we seem to playing right into the bourgeois state’s
> hand. They have us right where they want us.

Comrades!

I, a working-class Marxist-Leninist and proud member of the CPUSA, will not defend the Democratic Party against criticism from the left. I warmly look forward to the day when the U.S. working class has won political independence from the two parties of state-monopoly capitalism. I offer a few thoughts on our approach to the question of bourgeois elections:

I’m pleased that a comrade shared an extract from Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. V. I. Lenin’s book ‘State and Revolution’ should be studied and re-studied by all working-class Marxist-Leninists. I warmly agree with V.I. Lenin about the class essence of the state and the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

V.I. Lenin, however, never condemned electoral tactics as a means of working-class struggle. Lenin wrote that:

‘Elections are only one of the fields, and by no means the most important, most essential one (particularly in a revolutionary period) in which the socialist proletariat wages the struggle for liberty and for the abolition of all exploitation…

‘Therefore, for the class conscious proletarian, election tactics can only be an adaption of his general tactics to a particular struggle, namely, the election struggle; under no circumstances does this imply a change in the principles of his tactics, or the shifting of the ‘center’ of those tactics.’ (Lenin, ‘When You Hear the Judgement of a Fool…’, 1907)

V.I. Lenin, in his classic ”Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder’, wrote against revolutionaries who believed that electoral tactics were worthless under capitalism:

‘It is very easy to show one’s ‘revolutionary’ temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments; its very ease, however, cannot turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult problem…

‘It is because, in Western Europe, the backward masses of the workers and–to an even greater degree–the small peasants are much more imbued with bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices than they were in Russia; because of that, it is ONLY from within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle, undaunted by any difficulties, to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices.’ (Lenin, ”Left-Wing’ Communism-An Infantile Disorder’, 1920)

I believe that working-class Marxist-Leninists should consider using bourgeois elections to run Communist Party USA candidates for office.

I also believe that Marxist-Leninists should be concerned with defeating the ultra-right (the most reactionary sectors of the transnational monopolies). Voting against the ultra-right is not necessarily a betrayal of the interests of the working class. I warmly share an extract from the program of the Communist Party USA:

I warmly believe that working-class Marxist-Leninists must be concerned with winning every inch of democratic and organizing rights in order to facilitate the working-class struggle against the bourgeoisie. V.I. Lenin wrote of political liberty (even under capitalism):

‘Political liberty will not at once deliver the working people from poverty, but it will give the workers a weapon with which to fight poverty. There is no other means and there can be no other means of fighting poverty except the unity of the workers themselves. But millions of people can not unite unless there is political liberty.’ (Lenin, ‘To the Rural Poor’, 1903)

RE: Revisionism, Marxism-Leninism and our Constitution
Michael Wood 03/03/2007 20:47

Comrades!

I warmly point out that, while working to defeat the ultra-right, the Communist Party USA also attempts to build the strength for future political independence from the two parties of capitalism. I believe that this feature of CPUSA electoral work is not sufficiently understood or, I would argue, applied by Communists.

I share an extract from the program of the Communist Party USA:

‘In the course of its participation in anti-ultra-right struggles, the Party agitates and helps prepare for the next phase of struggle, the building of an anti-monopoly peoples party, all the while educating and advocating for socialism…

‘…A LABOR-LED PEOPLE’S PARTY

‘Currently, the organizational forms of political and electoral independence for the working class and its allies mainly utilizes support for candidates who utilize the Democratic line to run for office. Despite the variety of new political forms and experiences of the labor and peoples movements, the difficulties placed on organizing successful third parties remain a barrier to fully developing a political party free from control of the monopolies. Restrictions on full democracy, such as excessive signature requirements for candidates, big money for advertising, and other obstacles, need to be eliminated in order to allow the fullest democratic participation of all people.

‘The forms of political and organizational independence that are currently developing towards a mass peoples party include:

* labors independent electoral apparatus;
* independent election financing;
* labor candidates;
* independent electoral apparatus in the African American community and other oppressed communities;
* progressive get-out-the-vote and voter registration campaigns;
* the growth of Internet-based activist networks;
* organizations of voters partisan to specific peoples issues;
* movements running on the Democratic line, or on two lines, or as independents;
* Communists running for officeas communists or as independents for non-partisan offices, or as part of progressive slates; and
* organizational forms that provide unity among these different forces and movements.

‘Independent election tickets and parties, when they support the current central objective of defeating the ultra-right and do not weaken that effort, are also part of the process that objectively prepares the ground for a powerful peoples anti-monopoly party in the future.

‘The process of developing a national mass peoples party based on the working class, the nationally oppressed, women, youth, and other progressive forces cannot mature until the anti-monopoly stage of struggle. During the current stage of struggle against the ultra-right, the strategy to win necessarily includes a section of the transnationals and the Democratic Party, in whose national leadership certain transnationals and some of the rich play a big role. In the anti-monopoly stage, a party capable of challenging for governmental power can and must be free of domination by any sector of monopoly. It must be a party in which labor and the other core forces play the leading role, acting in alliance with all working people and progressive social movements.

‘The struggle for a program of demands to radically curb the power of the transnationals will take place both through a peoples party and through non-electoral forms at all levelsworkplace grassroots forms and neighborhood, city, state, and national coalitions. These organizational forms of struggle can gradually coalesce into on-going multi-issue coalitions and a general anti-monopoly front of struggle. The methods of struggle engaged in by such a mass upsurge may include demonstrations, petitioning, picketing, boycotts, civil disobedience, and strikes, mass strikes and general strikes, in addition to electoral struggle.

‘It is possible and desirable that a peoples party and anti-monopoly coalition win governmental control at local, city, state, and even the national level. The goal of this governmental participation is to implement those parts of the program of demands not already won through mass struggle.

‘Curbing the power of the monopolies weakens capitalism as a whole. The building of a peoples party and the general anti-monopoly coalition shifts the balance of forces incrementally toward the qualitative change that opens the direct struggle for working peoples power and socialism.’ (Communist Party USA, ‘The Road To Socialism: Program of the Communist Party USA’, 2005)

Revisionism is still THE Issue
Douglas Eckhoff 03/02/2007 04:28
I thank the comrade below for his thoughtful analysis of the article under discussion. I, for one am in complete agreement with his assessment.

Chairman Webb writes:

‘The repetition of timeless, nonhistorical, abstract formulas, therefore, is inconsistent with the spirit and letter of Marxism. Its creative development and the application of its principles occur only in intimate connection to day-to-day life.’

‘A few worry that such an emphasis will lead to revisionism and right opportunism, and such a danger, of course, always exists. However, I would argue that dogmatism and sectarianism, traceable in no small measure to the radical movement of the 1960s that lacked a working-class political and ideological anchor, have been a much larger problem in our Party and the left at the level of practice and theory than is acknowledged.’

I would ask the chairman, ‘What are these ‘timeless, non-historical, formulas’ that you are so concerned with?’ Is it that we sometimes use classic Marxist texts to understand our own context or is it we are just not using the ones that fit your vision of the Party?

Yes many of in the party fear and fight revisionism. Yet to you, based on the quote above it is we ‘dogmatists’ who are holding the party back.

Maybe it can summed up this way….and forgive me for using a text that was written in 1948:

‘If we tried to go on the offensive when the Masses were not yet awakend, that would be adventurism. If we insisted on leading the masses to do anything against their will, that would certainly fail. I f we did not advance when the masses demand we advance that would be Right opportunism.’
-Cahirman Mao

I know of many couragerous people in this party. No one acts without thoughtful analysis. But too many, for too long (and I include myself in that group) sat on their asses and hoped ‘alliances’ would make us palatable to the Democrats and labor aristocracy.

We all believe in educating the masses but to align ourselves with a so-called left (the Democratic Party to name one) that is already collapsing in the US Congress on how to handle this war then yes we have become Right opportunists, we have become revisionists, and yes, THAT is the problem which needs to addressed.

In solidarity.

RE: Revisionism is still THE Issue
John Bollman 03/02/2007 19:26
I agree with the two previous posters. Revisionism is a major issue that has ruined many parties. We need to be out front and center pushing for things like repeal of Taft-Hartley, single-payer healthcare, universal education, co-ops, wealth redistribution, and other socialist causes.
I realize that we need to work with center and center-left parties and groups in this country to form a broad opposition to the right, but we also need to remember who we are and remember that the ‘left’ in the US is to the RIGHT of most European parties! We can be critically supportive of Democrats when they push small scale reforms (which is all we will ever get from them) but we also must speak to the more radical issues we care about, and point out in every instance why capitalism stands in the way of a peaceful, prosperous, democratic country and world.

You can slap lipstick on a pig (Democrats) but it’s still the same capitalist pig. The biggest reason I hear for people not joining the party is ‘aren’t the CPUSA people just a Democrat group?’ We hardly distinguish ourselves!We need to stand up for the socialist countries of DPRK,Vietnam,Laos,China, and Cuba but also point out things we would do differently. We also need to inform people about the revolutionary situations in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nepal.

The other thing that really bothers me is that we are supposedly trying to build a center-left coalition but we are more friendly towards the Democrats than other socialists who don’t agree with us!!!!! I and a few others will be going to the March 17th march on the Pentagon and we are appalled that just because of differences with ANSWER, the CPUSA has not endorsed the march or even talked about it in it’s paper! There will be tens of thousands of working class people and military families there demanding that the troops be brought home, and just because the party has organizing disagreements with ANSWER, the party will thumb it’s nose at all those working people it claims it is trying to unite! I will plug my nose and vote Democrat but I can tell you what..I would rather be in the streets with ANSWER over the corporate beholden Democrats anyday!

RE: Revisionism is still THE Issue
Michael Wood 03/03/2007 21:01

> John Bollman wrote that: ‘The other thing that really bothers me is that we are
> supposedly trying to build a center-left coalition but we
> are more friendly towards the Democrats than other
> socialists who don’t agree with us!!!!! I and a few others
> will be going to the March 17th march on the Pentagon and
> we are appalled that just because of differences with
> ANSWER, the CPUSA has not endorsed the march or even talked
> about it in it’s paper! There will be tens of thousands of
> working class people and military families there demanding
> that the troops be brought home, and just because the party
> has organizing disagreements with ANSWER, the party will
> thumb it’s nose at all those working people it claims it is
> trying to unite! I will plug my nose and vote Democrat but I
> can tell you what..I would rather be in the streets with
> ANSWER over the corporate beholden Democrats anyday!’

Comrade John!

I warmly believe that any individual member of the Communist Party U.S.A. is entitled to attend a demonstration and…distribute the ‘People’s Weekly World’ to working-class people in the event that they so choose to do so.

I, for one, salute your proletarian commitment.

RE: Revisionism is still THE Issue
Douglas Eckhoff 03/02/2007 20:39
Thank you Comrade Bollman for that thoughtful analysis and cry of the heart. I am in complete agreement with you. I am sure many many others are as well.

The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party
Alan Maki 03/02/2007 04:20

In this essay there is not one single specific analysis provided relating to Communist Party work in any of the mass movements… ending the war in Iraq; single-payer, universal health care; the minimum wage, full employment and rights of working people; social security; plant closings; environmental questions and global warming, or the struggle against racism. Add to this, the predatory lending industry with hundreds of thousands of working people now losing their homes.

No mention of the coming economic collapse… like the socialist revolution which is certain even though the date isn’t predictable, the capitalist economy is going to collapse in a major depression at some point; we just don’t know when… and Webb doesn’t even mention this. This is not a matter of ‘fear-mongering,’ but another one of those things one can not avoid when discussing the nature of capitalism because it is where capitalist exploitation of man by man inevitably leads. One role of the Communist Party is to constantly remind working people of this aspect of capitalism… even if the adjuncts of the American Enterprise Institute and Marxist revisionists make light of this; and mock the suggestion that the capitalist economy is going to collapse.

Webb makes very vague assertions insinuating Party involvement in unnamed coalitions, but how do we assess anything and its effectiveness, if this involvement is in fact taking place, or if there is any Party initiative on any of these issues at all— if specifics are not discussed from which we all can learn?

Is there something to keep a secret? Should we know the true Communist Party membership figures so we know where we really stand; or do we have to read between the lines? Are we somehow ‘protecting’ our ‘coalition partners?’ Protecting them from what, anti-communist attacks? Hey, what’s the deal anyways, listening to right-wing talk radio both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are our ‘coalition partners’ as they dance to the beat of the Beatles’ ‘Revolution’ and ‘Imagine.’ Both have been called ‘Marxists’ ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ repeatedly by the right-wing talk radio hosts and the pundits… building on the anti-communist legacy of McCarthyism. Does Webb not listen to talk radio?

The pending closure of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant is one such issue we could be discussing in every minute detail to get a handle on the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party.’

Perhaps it would be helpful if the struggle to save this plant was discussed as it is becoming a focus for so many people.

What has the Party done on this issue, what should it be doing, what is the ‘nature, role, and work of the Communist Party’ in this struggle? Has the Party leadership taken the time to assess what resources are needed locally and in the state as well as regionally, nationally, and internationally? has the Party leadership assessed if it is possible to mount a successful struggle for the public ownership of this plant— thereby raising the ‘ownership’ question to a new level… which are are for doing, right?

I think a key to understanding ‘revisionism’ is understanding that revisionists speak in generalities and refuse to speak to specifics.

What has been the ‘nature, role, and work of the Communist Party’ in working with those involved in the Democratic Party and what has been the ‘nature, role, and work of the Communist Party’ inside of the Democratic Party? Has the Communist Party analyzed the so-called increase in the minimum wage being proposed? Has the Communist Party, its leaders and members, sought to clarify the difference between ‘single-payer, universal health care’ and ‘affordable universal health care’ in an attempt to point working people and the labor movement in the right direction on this question? Has there been any discussion as to ‘which’ Democrats are entitled to Communist Party support? Let’s talk about United States Congressman Collin Peterson as a concrete example; after all, he was nominated by a communist; and a communist helped to head off criticism of his role in supporting the war; is Minnesota’s United States Congressman Collin Peterson one of the ‘coalition partners’ described by Webb?

And, what initiatives are being pondered with Communists in Canada in conjunction with the Big Three automakers? Is the Canadian organization ‘The Socialist Project’ a non-sectarian organization we should be working with… what about the ideas of Sam Gindin and others in the labour movement in Canada who think socialism is on today’s agenda— in both Canada and the united States BECAUSE of the problems working people are now experiencing… are they wrong?

What exactly is the role of the PWW in helping to build local struggles around issues like the closure of the Ford twin Cities Assembly Plant in a way that educates working people nationally? A specific issue that needs to be addressed as we discuss the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party.’

William Z. Foster made a very concrete suggestion as to exactly what kind of education American workers require: an education in understanding capitalism and imperialism and the need for socialism.

Any worker with an interest should be able to pick up an essay on ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ and understand the importance of the Communist Party to working people and the working class… this is not the case with this essay. Certainly any ‘coalition partners’ have a right and need to know from Communists themselves what communists are trying to accomplish.

At some point this important discussion of ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ has to focus on the concrete because otherwise working people will look around and wonder where the Communist Party is and they will confuse other left organizations with it.

Is part of the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ one of informing working people of the real history of this country? If so, this essay falls far short in this area also as the article relegates the Communist Party to being a supporter of FDR when in fact the Party was considering supporting Minnesota’s socialist governor in a run against FDR. So, there was much more to the Communist Party’s involvement in the 1930’s… unfortunately Olson died an untimely death or the United States may have had a party similar to the socialist oriented New Democratic Party in Canada.

Just as this essay ambiguously mentions ‘revisionism,’ so too does it ambiguously mention the ‘non-sectarian’ left… when in fact sectarianism is a part and parcel to revisionism.

The working class, rank and file communists, and all those involved in the many ongoing mass struggles around a variety of issues some of which have been mentioned, are entitled to have it spelled out very clearly just how the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ relates to each of these important struggles now underway. The least this essay could have done is addressed one of these areas in detail with specifics cited so that working people would have a better understanding about what the Communist Party stands for and how it strives to accomplish its goals and objectives.

If anti-communism was as close to dead as the author suggests laying all of this out should be no problem, after all, if we are the ‘partners’ in all these coalitions as suggested there is nothing to hide.

Let us use the example of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant for a concrete discussion of the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party;’ then we will all have a better idea of just what is involved in discussing this topic. Perhaps a good place to start would be for Sam Webb to tighten up his essay with some specifics as he is very knowledgeable about auto related issues with a series of articles for the PWW and PA to kick off a real discussion centering on the planned closing of the Frd Twin Cities Assembly Plant? I am sure that communists across this country and all over the world would be most interested in how the Communist Party responds to such specific attacks on the working class and their communities.

The Wall Street Journal carried an article, ‘Socialism Burdens a Chinese Car Venture— Welfare Tasks Absorb 80% Of Giant Auto Plant’s Work Force.’ A couple months ago ‘Science and Society’ had an excellent article on how the Italian Communist Party fought sectarianism and how it paid off big time as it built powerful community and industrial clubs. It would seem to me that both articles provide a frame of reference for discussion of the topic ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party.’

The implication of the ambiguities in this essay, ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ is that working people will see through the lies of the capitalist media on their own… that communists do not have to understand when it is the right time to raise questions of private versus public ownership, etc. I would like to know if the writer of this essay believes that now is the appropriate time to raise the question of public ownership concerning the closing of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant? I would also like to know if the leadership of the Communist Party did not have some responsibility to broach the possibility of a joint Minnesota Government-Twin Cities-China joint venture to keep this plant open under public ownership during their trip to China? Do working people in all these coalitions of which Communists are partners have the right to expect that their Communist partners will respond in this way?

As anyone can readily see, the closing of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant provides us with all of the the issues I cited in my opening paragraph. If the Communist Party was involved in so many similar issues one could argue that maybe another example could be chosen to discuss the specifics of the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party.’ But, I think in reading between the lines of this essay we all know there are far too few initiatives on such issues otherwise specifics would have been used and cited very liberally.

In fact, revisionism has led to a very sectarian understanding of ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ over many years here in the United States.

I would never suggest that those who write such feeble revisionism as this essay is should be expelled from the Communist Party, but even those who support basing Communist Party policy on such ambiguities must see that the sorry state of affairs is closely related to a ‘sectarianism’ which the writer claims to be against.

I could provide a quote from the ‘Foundation of Leninism’ in response to the quote used from Thompson, but that would probably serve no purpose to creating a healthy discussion and dialogue on the topic of, ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party;’ all the same, people might want to read this great little book.

On the other hand… if ‘sectarianism’ and ‘revisionism’ is going to be discussed, perhaps we should all have the opportunity to read Earl Browder’s booklet, ‘Victory;’ and William Z. Foster’s response, ‘The Twilight of World Capitalism.’ I am not one who believes that Browder should have been expelled from the Party for stating his views; he should have been required to defend his views… in fact, Browder did apparently draw some conclusions that his views were wrong as evidenced from his debate with Max Schactman… now Sam Webb should explain why he has avoided discussing specifics and particulars which would have been so easy to do rather than writing so ambiguously to leave everyone speculating as to where he really wants to see the Communist Party go. Why would Webb even want to leave himself open to any speculation and charges of ‘revisionism.’

It is just so easy to explain all of this by using a specific example or two… we already have a lengthy essay, a few more pages detailing specifics won’t hurt.

On the issue of democratic centralism, perhaps specific problems in Minnesota could be used as examples… how at a District meeting everyone unanimously agreed to do a few very simple and basic things, and then there was no means of checking up on what was being done and the District Organizer got upset because the minutes from the meeting were used to highlight what we had agreed to do. Or how Party leaders laughed, yes, very literally laughed, at a comrade who suggested that we would see the price we pay for gas at the pumps rise to over $2.00 a gallon and suggested the Party should begin to consider taking on an educational campaign at the gas stations… something that everyone could do very easily. A perfect opportunity to educate working people about the nature of imperialism… just as William Z. Foster suggested be done.

Let us have a discussion about how ‘democratic centralism’ is given lip-service and then used, or more properly abused, in a very cultist and sectarian manner in order to avoid open dialogue and debate on these and other issues.

Why has there been a fear to discuss George McGovern’s ‘Blueprint’ for ending the war in Iraq? Because it may offend our ‘coalition partners’ in the labor movement and the Democratic Party who refuse to forgive him for standing side by side with Henry Wallace and Frances Perkins, who were also a part of the FDR New Deal coalition government that included many socialist and communist politicians at local, county, and state levels for whom Floyd B. Olson was the spokesperson… something the present ‘coalition’ referred to by Webb doesn’t have; and no doubt Webb, if we are to believe he still adheres to his previous thinking that ‘socialism’ is not yet on the agenda— like it can just be taken off and placed back on when some leader deems it appropriate… yes Browder tried to do this, too.

It is amazing that these leaders can proclaim socialism off the agenda on the one hand while on the other hand they can’t participate in any kind of specifics to advance the struggles in progress at the moment.

Does anyone really believe the non-sense that Nancy Pelosi represents an alternative to neo-liberalism, or even to the Bush agenda? Or that she reflects the needs of working people and stands with working people struggling to achieve better lives? One thing that Webb fails to mention is that voters went to the polls, not believing that the Democratic Party was going to deliver on ending the war or on single-payer, universal health care… because voters had no such illusions as Webb does… in fact, talking with voters as they went to the polls on election day in three communities I found near unanimous disgust for both the Republicans and Democrats… people were just so pissed off they decided to vote for Democrats just to send Bush the message they are fed up with him.

Even when it comes to the minimum wage, everyone understands that the proposed increase is just another Democratic Party cheap trick to get votes… this would be a perfect opportunity to open up a far ranging discussion on just why the minimum wage should be a real living wage, and how to calculate what it should be… but, even on this question Webb lets the Democratic Party shysters off the hook… it is almost like Webb is acquiescing towards the Democratic Party in the very same way the Democratic Party has acquiesced towards Bush’s war and his big-business agenda. Working people expect the Communist Party to make the case for what workers need to live better lives in a world at peace… working people will not be offended by the Communist Party clearly stating what is wrong with the phony legislative agenda of the Democrats and a few well-heeled labor leaders that have nothing in common with working people other than they live, much like capitalists off of their labor.

I think we need to clearly define just who these ‘coalition partners’ are that have been described in this essay… perhaps because of lack of activity and the withdrawal from struggle on the part of so many leaders and clubs the wrong ‘coalition partners’ have been chosen to work with? I am kind of wondering if thee ‘coalition partners’ even know they have such ‘partners.’ If a ‘coalition partner’ in the peace movement can not even be convinced to discuss McGovern’s ‘Blueprint’ to end the war in Iraq because of such deep-seated anti-communist animosities, is anti-communism really as latent as Webb suggests? Of course, the Democratic Party leadership has always been willing to have communists work with them— as long as they call all the shots, make all the decisions as communists do their grassroots work as they specify without raising any questions. Whenever communists have voiced their opinions, trouble has arisen. It has been this way since Roosevelt dropped Henry Wallace and took on Truman. Webb ignores this bit of history because to acknowledge this places him at odds with his ‘coalition partners;’ partners he can’t define and partners who do not know who they have for partners.

Yes, let us have a real discussion of the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party;’ a real open and democratic discussion just might go a long ways towards ‘growing the Communist Party’ among the working class.

In conclusion, Webb’s ambiguities and evasion of specific issues makes it easy to make the claim that we have ‘coalition partners’ and always taking a partial credit for working class advances. But any communist discussion about the ‘The Nature, Role, and Work of the Communist Party’ requires specific details as a prerequisite to any such discussion.

new theorys and ideas
Brenden Donaldson 02/28/2007 22:56
comrades

I think in light of the modern times marxism is no longer a posibilty.Just becuase the soviet union and china were and are marxist and both have bad names.It’s a new time and we has comrades for the same glorious cause must work as one and must form our own ideas and move on together.This nation is in my mind is nearly on it’s hnees,and it is the best time to start just talking to the people all people not just the worker communism is about equality for all people so we must talk to all people workers poor police and busines owners even for a revolution there must be at least a strong bass it does not have to be big but will do anything for freedom,and we has communists must fight not for our selfs but for the people and not for personal gain

and i really enjoyed the paper
please exuse typos and miss spelling

RE: new theorys and ideas
Michael Wood 03/01/2007 17:31
> Brendan wrote that: ‘…I think in light of the modern times marxism is no longer a possibility…. it is the
> best time to start just talking to the people all people
> not just the worker. Communism is about equality for all
> people so we must talk to all people: workers, the poor, police
> and business owners…’

Comrades!

I warmly strongly disagree with the viewpoint that ‘Marxism is no longer a possibility’.

I believe that Marxist-Leninist’s focus upon the working class is absolutely correct. The working class (the proletariat) alone is a really revolutionary class. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that:

‘Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally dissapear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

‘All previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lower stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.’ (Marx and Engels, ‘Communist Manifesto’, 1848)

I also wish to point out that, generally speaking, ‘the poor’ are also members of the working class. I warmly point out that working class is defined in footnote number 12 of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ and it’s definition explains the class position of ‘the poor’:

‘…By proletariat [is meant] the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.’ (Marx and Engels, ‘Communist Manifesto’, 1848)

I warmly point out that the capitalist class-as a class-opposes socialism because it’s class interests are diametrically opposed to the class interests of the proletariat.

On the other hand, the working class has strategic allies at every stage of struggle.

‘[Marx and Engels] taught the working class to be conscious of its own strength and of its own class interests, and to unite for a determined struggle aginst the capitalist class, rallying around itself all the forces discontented with capitalism.’ (Maurice Cornforth, ‘Historical Materialism’, 1972, Second Printing, International Publishers)

You may enjoy reading the Communist Party USA’s program ‘The Road to Socialism’ which is available on the CPUSA website.

RE: new theorys and ideas
Douglas Eckhoff 02/28/2007 17:53
> comrades
>
> I think in light of the modern times marxism is no longer a
> posibilty.Just becuase the soviet union and china were and
> are marxist and both have bad names.It’s a new time and we
> has comrades for the same glorious cause must work as one
> and must form our own ideas and move on together.This
> nation is in my mind is nearly on it’s hnees,and it is the
> best time to start just talking to the people all people
> not just the worker communism is about equality for all
> people so we must talk to all people workers poor police
> and busines owners even for a revolution there must be at
> least a strong bass it does not have to be big but will do
> anything for freedom,and we has communists must fight not
> for our selfs but for the people and not for personal gain
>
> and i really enjoyed the paper
> please exuse typos and miss spelling

Comrade,

Using new theories and ideas does not negate the fact that the CPUSA remains a Marxist-Leninist Party. We may have updated the means of transportation but the map and destination are still valid.

If as you say the country is ‘nearly on it’s knees’ than we better be ready to do more than just talk.

In solidarity.

State and Revolution
Douglas Eckhoff 02/28/2007 15:43
I too, along With Comrade Michael Wood, express my thanks to the Party for this forum.

While I agree with Chairman Webb that an understanding of ‘context’ is of critical importance in the movement/transition toward socialism and eventually communism, we must not be afraid to use the wisdom of those who came before.

Let us take Lenin, who chairman Webb acknowledges may take on a new significance as the workers movement advances. In his ‘State and Revolution’ Lenin is very clear that, ‘The overthorw of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class, which, by the economic conditions of its existence, is being prepared for this work, and is provided both with the opportunity, and the power to perform it.’
The above sentiment permeates Chairman Webb’s thoughtful analysis. The working class (the proletariat) is the key to progressive societal change.

I fear though that Chairman Webb may be overly cautious in other areas. In the same work, Lenin is clear that, ‘the bourgeois state, can only be ‘put an end to’ by a revolution.’

Therefore some questions and concerns remain:

1) what do we, as a Party, mean by ”revolution’ in the year 2007?

2) if we know what we (and Lenin) mean by revolution, how do we understand the synthesis of meanings?

3) will will just participate in the revolution as proper circumstances present themselves? or

4) should we assist in its particular instigation?

5) how do we instigate for ‘revolution’? inside or outside the ‘bourgeoise parliamentary process’?

Limited cooperation with the democratic left as certain circumstances arise can be strategically important for the overall well being of the working class but I think we all know that cooperation has its limits.

Until next time….

In solidarity.

Socialism, Democracy and Capitalist Propaganda
Michael Wood 02/28/2007 10:11
Comrades!

I warmly appreciate that the CPUSA has provided this forum for Marxist-Leninist discussion.

I have re-read Comrade Webb’s discussion paper and wish to raise a specific criticism regarding perceptions of socialism and democracy.

Comrade Webb, in the section entitled ‘Party of Socialism’, stated that:

‘…the idea that socialism and democracy are incompatable has widespread currency. And this perception can’t be ascribed solely to ruling-class propaganda.’

I, in a spirit of comradeship, disagree with Webb’s viewpoint about the role of ‘ruling-class propaganda’. I believe that Comrade Webb’s statement wrongly PRESUMES that the working-class of the United States has been presented with an objective and working-class view of the former socialist Soviet Union. I do not believe that the United States working-class has been presented with positive information about the former socialist countries. Capitalist and reactionary propaganda against socialism, not the shortcomings of the former socialist nations, are responsible for the lack of mass knowledge that the former socialist Soviet Union guaranteed the democratic rights of universal healthcare, education, guaranteed employment and working-class political power. I warmly point out that a 1962 edition of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. guaranteed the following democratic rights, unrecognized by capitalist propaganda, to women and oppressed nationalities:

‘Women in the USSR are accorded all rights on an equal footing with men in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political, and other social activity.

‘The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured by women being accorded the same rights as men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and also by state protection of the interests of mother and child, state aid to mothers of large families and to unmarried mothers, maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens…

‘…Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political and other social activity, is an indefeasible law.

‘Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, the establishment of any direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, are punishable by law.’ (‘Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’, as amended by the Seventh Session of the Fifth Supreme Soviet of the USSR, 1962, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow)

I believe that socialist democracy in the former socialist countries was a world-historic achievement that working-class people in the UNited States can be inspired by.

RE: Socialism, Democracy and Capitalist Propaganda
Chase Matthews 03/05/2007 20:41
> Comrades!
>
> I warmly appreciate that the CPUSA has provided this forum
> for Marxist-Leninist discussion.
>
> I have re-read Comrade Webb’s discussion paper and wish to
> raise a specific criticism regarding perceptions of
> socialism and democracy.
>
> Comrade Webb, in the section entitled ‘Party of Socialism’,
> stated that:
>
> ‘…the idea that socialism and democracy are incompatable
> has widespread currency. And this perception can’t be
> ascribed solely to ruling-class propaganda.’
>
> I, in a spirit of comradeship, disagree with Webb’s
> viewpoint about the role of ‘ruling-class propaganda’. I
> believe that Comrade Webb’s statement wrongly PRESUMES that
> the working-class of the United States has been presented
> with an objective and working-class view of the former
> socialist Soviet Union. I do not believe that the United
> States working-class has been presented with positive
> information about the former socialist countries.
> Capitalist and reactionary propaganda against socialism,
> not the shortcomings of the former socialist nations, are
> responsible for the lack of mass knowledge that the former
> socialist Soviet Union guaranteed the democratic rights of
> universal healthcare, education, guaranteed employment and
> working-class political power. I warmly point out that a
> 1962 edition of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. guaranteed
> the following democratic rights, unrecognized by capitalist
> propaganda, to women and oppressed nationalities:
>
> ‘Women in the USSR are accorded all rights on an equal
> footing with men in all spheres of economic, government,
> cultural, political, and other social activity.
>
> ‘The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured by
> women being accorded the same rights as men to work,
> payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and
> education, and also by state protection of the interests of
> mother and child, state aid to mothers of large families and
> to unmarried mothers, maternity leave with full pay, and the
> provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries
> and kindergartens…
>
> ‘…Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR,
> irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres
> of economic, government, cultural, political and other
> social activity, is an indefeasible law.
>
> ‘Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or,
> conversely, the establishment of any direct or indirect
> privileges for, citizens on account of their race or
> nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national
> exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, are punishable by
> law.’ (‘Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist
> Republics’, as amended by the Seventh Session of the Fifth
> Supreme Soviet of the USSR, 1962, Foreign Languages
> Publishing House, Moscow)
>
> I believe that socialist democracy in the former socialist
> countries was a world-historic achievement that
> working-class people in the UNited States can be inspired
> by.
>

If you ask me, the last thing that the Communist Party should be doing is clinging onto the legacy of the Soviet Union. ‘Supporting the Democrats’ is one thing, but the party also suffers from the image that it is no more than a political dinosaur that has failed to take a thoroughly critical position against undemocratic socialist regimes and even Stalin himself.

Why go around quoting from the Soviet Constitution as if this document can give us an accurate description of Soviet society? The Soviet Constitution could not even offer basic protections afforded to people in the United States. The codes of the Soviet republics openly contradicted the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union enjoyed little independence from the CPSU for years, these contradictions were not addressed. Soviet Constitutional law was meant to be descriptive of a particular stage of social development. But in the tradition of Russian legal codifications, the Soviet Constitutions were also images of what society ‘should be like.’ In other words, they were not prescriptive as are ‘bourgeois democratic’ constitutions. You mention here that the Soviet Constitution granted citizens ‘universal healthcare.’ Since you are quoting a revision of the 1936 Constitution, I believe you are referring to:

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

Was this true? No. The Soviet Union did not possess any kind of exhaustive welfare state and social security until after Stalin was dead and Khrushchev came to power. Free medical services were available, but extremely limited, and priority was granted to party members. Work pensions existed for some, but for most people it was expected that your family would have to take care of you when you reached old age. Even after Khrushchev, access was often inadequate, and pensions were not quite so generous.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 granted an array of rights.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

We would have to be kidding ourselves if we honestly believe that this were true. Let us put the Stalinist era aside since it is the most grotesque manifestation of oppression during the lifespan of the USSR. Afterwards, freedom of speech was limited, freedom of the press was limited, and freedom of assembly was definitely restricted if it fell outside of officially recognized organizations. This is not to say that there was no difference of opinion manifested in, say, the Khrushchev era for instance. There was an open debate between what in the West were described as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ opinions at this point in history. But to go beyond that was not allowed. And just as much as ‘dissidents’ referred to this article in the Soviet Constitution to defend their rights, Soviet officials referred to it in order to deny them such rights. Notice that it begins with ‘In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system….’ Therefore, if such speech, or if such organizations, were not deemed ‘in conformity with the interests of the working people’ and if they did not ‘strengthen the socialist system’ then they were illegal. If non-approved literature was to be published, it would have to be through samizdat’. And unapproved gatherings would be considered ‘disturbances’ or ‘anti-Soviet.’ This was not a democracy – and it certainly offered far less in the way of the kind of speech and organization that we enjoy here. Chairman Webb does not go far enough in emphasizing the ‘shortcomings’ of the so-called socialist countries, the USSR in particular.

I find little about the Soviet Union ‘inspiring.’ Workers’ power? Where? What workers? The Party bureaucrats? Where was this ‘working-class power’ in the Soviet Union outside of hackneyed history books and Soviet publications? Get real. Go ahead and tell me that I am basing my argument on ‘bourgeois propaganda’ or call me a Trotskyist (who by the way deserve the same criticisms I am giving here) or whatever else stems from your cognitive dissonance on this issue. The CPUSA should be doing now what it should have done decades ago and break with all of these ‘socialist’ states, fully denounce Stalinism, and emphasize the fact that we are surpassing liberalism in the kind of democracy that we envision instead of hypocritically attacking ‘liberal democracies’ for being undemocratic while refusing to address the ‘shortcomings’ of the ‘socialist’ world. It is absolutely out of touch with the democratic values of the American people, and the CPUSA can do without looking foolish by finding ‘inspiration’ where it should not exist. The cause of socialism transcends all of these countries and all individuals in the orthodox Marxist-Leninist pantheon.

Proud to Be Communists!
Michael Wood 02/27/2007 23:38

Comrades!

Shout and loud! Shout it proud! We are Communists!

I believe that V.I. Lenin’s book ‘What Is To Be Done?’ remains the fundamental work on a Communist Party.

I appreciate that Comrade Webb stresses building the CPUSA and the ‘People’s weekly World’. Previous Party leaders Gus Hall and William Z. Foster emphasised this important Marxist-Leninist work, too.

I recommend, in a spirit of comradeship, that we always emphasise that the Party plays an independent role in the mass and working-class struggles. V.I. Lenin wrote that:

‘We see in the INDEPENDENT, uncompromisingly Marxist party of the revolutionary proletariat the sole pledge of socialism’s victory and the road that is most free from vacillations.’ (Lenin, ‘A Militant Agreement for the Uprising’, Feb. 21, 1905)

We should not view the struggle against the ultra-right as an invitation to submerge our Party so completely in the mass movements that no one knows that we are Communists. I agree that our task today is to promote Marxism-Leninism, socialism and our Party.

I also draw reader’s attention to the passage in V.I. Lenin’s important book ‘State and Revolution’:

‘By educating the workers party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new order, of being the teacher, guide and leader of all the toilers and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.’ (Lenin, ‘State and Revolution’, 1917)

I respectfully believe that Comrade Webb could have sharpened up his approach to the question of socialist transformation.

I proudly point out that the Minneapolis club of the CPUSA is improving and projecting the Party and the PWW in a Marxist-Leninist manner. Our Party has been an open public Communist presence at anti-war rallies. We have increased our hand-to-hand distribution of the PWW to our fellow activists, working class and African-American people. We have increased the Marxist-Leninist content of our club!

Within the last three months, in addition to deepening our ties to the working class and anti-war movement, we have achieved the following three accomplishments:

1) One of our comrades was photographed for the cover of a college newspaper and was identified in the newspaper as a member of the Communist Party.

2) Two comrades were interviewed as Communist Party members for a local TV show.

3) A recent letter to the editor in a local independent newspaper recently featured a letter which stated that the ‘PWW was everywhere, all the time.’

What Is "Revisionism"?
Michael Wood 02/27/2007 18:40
Comrades!

I believe that since the word revisionism has been used in Comrade Webb’s discussion paper and comments made by Douglas Eckoff that, in the interests of Marxist-Leninist education, a definition of revisionism may be in order :

Comrades!

I warmly suggest reading V.I. Lenin’s essays against revisionism: ‘Marxism and Revisionism’ (1908) and ‘Differences in the European Labor Movement’ (1910).

This is a great look at the party
John Bollman 02/27/2007 14:09

I have been a member of the party for a few years now in Michigan. We are currently trying to rebuild the mid-Michigan club and the Detroit club has been very helpful and more than willing to come and help us. I hope the rest of the party is as active as they have been. We have been successful in bringing new people interested in the party. One idea we use, is to place a stamp or sticker on the papers we distribute giving a local contact. Another idea I would put forward is buying subscriptions of PA for local libraries.

Initial Thoughts
Douglas Eckhoff 02/27/2007 05:10
While I remained on the sidelines of party activities the last few years I have decided that there is no time left to remain inactive. I thank the NY Chair for taking the time to personally communicate with me and bring me back into the action, and I thank Chairman Webb for this article.

Chairman Webb writes:

I believe that as long as we remain true Marxist-Leninists we will have our anchor. I bacame a a member of the CPUSA exactly because its goal was communism! Because it was ‘the’ party of Marxism-Leninism. I do not fear the word ‘commie’ or the symbols we use, or the authors we read. Used properly and with insight they will attract, not repel, new members.

The thing I fear is that we will feel compelled to do what the Italian Communist Party did in 1989-1990 under Achille Ochetto. They destroyed their historical foundations, their symbols, and their core. Becoming the Democratic Party of the Left they sacrificed their soul for a piece of the pie.

We are Marxist-Leninists and we should remain Marxist-Leninists. Let the Social Democrats join the DSA! I see no compromise on this issue and I believe Comrade Webb would agree. This paper was a great start for the new work and new ways of thinking we need to consider without betraying our heritage.

In solidarity with all comrades!

Thoughts
Jesse Jack 02/26/2007 18:30
Just a couple quick thoughts…

I would like to see more discussion on democratic centralism. I think this is an important concept that a lot of people are losing grasp of. Most specifically the ideas of keeping factionalism to a minimum and not airing our ‘dirty laundry’. I seem to remember when we were ramping up to the last convention an incident where certain people were called out — by name, even, if I remember correctly — on the front page of CPUSA.org for disagreeing with the dominant line. I think we should avoid this, first of all to encourage frank discussion, and second because exposing our internal divisions to anyone with an internet connection makes us vulnerable.

Also, I like the idea of regional organizers. Out here in the western states it seems very easy to be ‘disconnected’ from the Party at large. Anything we can do to delegate organizing responsibility and distribute it around the country is a step in the right direction.

Many great ideas
martin cleary 02/26/2007 13:50

I read this article with much intrest,it brings fresh air to our ideas.I feel new members are a must if the party is to grow but the old stigma of commie still hurts,many of us are still afraid of it.But its important to know the times are changed people are looking for some hope ,some light at the end of thier long journey .i agree there are many people out there waiting for us we need to reach out to them,one to one via the media and in our workplaces.Thanks for writeing this great article i will read it many times.

Comments

Tags:

Author

pww@pww.org

View Profile

For democracy. For equality. For socialism. For a sustainable future and a world that puts people before profits. Join the Communist Party USA today.

Join Now

We are a political party of the working class, for the working class, with no corporate sponsors or billionaire backers. Join the generations of workers whose generosity and solidarity sustains the fight for justice.

Donate Now

CPUSA Mailbag

If you have any questions related to CPUSA, you can ask our experts

QHow does the CPUSA feel about the current American foreign...
AThanks for a great question, Conlan. CPUSA stands for peace and international solidarity, and has a long history of involvement...

Ask a question

See all Answer