Submitted by Gerald Meyer, a friend from Brooklyn

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Communist movement everywhere fell into disarray. One of the manifestations of this shock was the hasty decision of Communist parties’ changing their names. I know of no instance where that helped any Communist Party to persist, no less to grow. Here in the United States, those CPUSA members who left to create the Committees of Correspondence miserably failed to create a viable organization. By comparison, the much weakened CPUSA has done better. Elsewhere, parties that changed their names, such as the Italian party, either drifted so far to the right there is literally no trace of its Communist origins, or they faded into coalitions of other outsider parties; this led to their loss of any discernible influence on the flow of events in their own countries. Where Communist parties kept their names, they have had great success at maintaining their organizations, ties to trade unions, and even contesting elections. I am thinking here of the Communist parties in India, Greece, Portugal, and, on an infinitely smaller scale, Canada. In short, there is little or no evidence that when a Communist Party changes its name there are any positive results for that party. And then there are losses.

The change in the CPUSA’s name will cause disaffection among those members and supporters of the CPUSA who deeply believe in the rectitude of the Communist movement and the heroism of the millions of Communists who defeated Fascism and built socialist societies that brought about decent societies and successfully challenged imperialism. Behind the CPUSA’s small membership and weakened structure lies a glorious history, which grows even more impressive as the contemporary Left fails to defend even the most minimal gains of the working class. By changing its name, the CPUSA will lose its connection with this precious heritage and gain nothing in return. Why would anyone be motivated to join a weak organization that has rejected its own history. That ploy has already been tried by the Committee of Correspondence and has proven to be of no avail. 

Let me suggest an alternative: The CPUSA is the only entity which has the historic, might I say moral, right to present a minimal program to defend the immediate interests of the working people tied to transitional goals, such as the defense of the public sector and government job-creating projects. This appeal could be linked to the building of workers centers which could provide immediate help to workers and to organize activities capable of challenging aspect of the capitalist system. The Left has absolutely no direction and the need for some center to coordinate and direct immediate action continually grows. I believe that if the CPUSA made such a call, it would find a widespread response. 

The views and opinions expressed in the Convention Discussion are those of the author alone. The Communist Party is publishing these views as a service to encourage discussion and debate. 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.

For details about the convention, visit the Convention homepage
To contribute to the discussion, visit the Convention Discussion webpage

CONVENTION DISCUSSION 
30th National Convention, Communist Party USA
Chicago | June 13-15, 2014

Comments