This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA’s 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. CPUSA.org 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.

Communists being involved in the mass movements for jobs, peace and health care is axiomatic and I think few if any of us would disagree. It is the quality of our role that needs thorough discussion and implementation. There are three points in John Rummel’s contribution, “The movement needs to kick it up a notch,” that concerns me with regard to the Party’s role.

1. Comrade Rummel states, “The task of the Communist Party and other left and progressive people is to join, build and help unite these majorities to win reforms, work to see that labor and the core forces assume leadership, and allow these forces – and ourselves – to gain experience in struggle.” Communists can and should always learn and gain experience, but this is nothing new. It sounds as if we communists have been sitting on our hands for the past 10 years. Far from it, we have been seriously engaged through eight years of Bush and through a hard fought election campaign. We have been struggling with most of the forces responsible for the election victory. That is precisely why we have earned the right to question the direction of the Party both ideologically and organizationally.

2. Rummel further states referring to mass rallies, “Nor was the message about drawing a line in the sand around the most militant or advanced demands. It was about activating a grass roots base to fight and win the best reform possible.” There is no doubt that at some point there needs to be an assessment of what is the best possible. The problem is how one reaches the point where the “best possible” is indeed the best possible. For trade unions this often means asking for much more than is likely to be won. Communists should do no less. We are we are today in the health care debate because so called pragmatism set in even before the Democratic Party National Convention. If single payer, rather than the HCAN position became part of the election campaign at all levels, we may very well today have at the very least a public option. Don’t take my word for it; listen to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others on the left. It is no accident that now the AFL‐CIO is pushing single payer. It is the job of Communists to aim higher and at the same time know when to negotiate down. This is not sectarian. This is not preaching from on high. This is from being deeply involved and having the skill to present advanced ideas while fighting for the best possible.

3. Finally, Rummel states, “It is in these broad working class movements where we can and need to build the Party. It is here where we can build our online press, have one‐on‐one discussions, meet people to invite to meetings, schools and more.” It almost sounds as if we are satisfied with a “slow but steady” growth because we will continue to recruit by leaning to our neighbor and whisper who we are. What’s wrong with the Party publically raising questions and contributing to the discussion as a public legal organization? I have the advantage of just listening to the health care summit. It was nauseating enough to listen to the Republicans, but to listen to bipartisan concern about budget neutral legislation to keep people healthy when we will spend over $700 billion on our killing machine is an obscenity that the Party must address in no uncertain terms. It needs to raise this is all meetings serious about funding all the programs for the people. We need to be clear in our opposition to all interventions not just the build up in Afghanistan.

Comments