CPUSA: Moscow's stooge

Scott Marshall Scott at rednet.org
Tue Apr 25 05:51:45 MDT 1995


>
>The problem with the CPUSA is not that they got money from Moscow. We
>never blamed the ANC for that, and in fact thought it rather to Moscow's
>credit that it sometimes supported liberation movements.

There was no "sometimes" about it - until Gorbachev it was policy. And it
included much of the liberation struggles around the world. Unfortunately a
policy that doesn't jive with your world outlook.

Remember the charge that Honneker (sp?) had vast slush funds in Swiss banks?
Remember how fast that charge was dropped? Know why the charge was dropped
in his so-called trial? They sure as hell didn't want the truth to come out
about what those solidarity funds were being used for.

>
>The problem with the CPUSA was
>
>(a) that it subordinated revolutionary internationalism to Russian foreign
>policy, as in the Nazi-Soviet pact or the no-strike pledge in WWII;

Maybe the SU should have just surrendered right away to the Nazi's and gone
along with US and British schemes. Funny I seem to remember that the
overwhelming majority of US workers and trade unionists supported the
temporary no strike pledge to defeat Hitler. And who on the left fought most
effectiviely for the all union offensive against the corporations after the
war - and which groups on the left supported the Reuther betrayal of that
united front against the employers?

>
>(b) that it abandoned political independence based on the working class
>for a position of supporting the "left" wing of the Democratic party;

You've made this undocumented charge several times now so lets get into it.
This is one of the main reason your friends in the CoC left the party
because we *wouldn't* follow this policy. But that aside, lets examine the
practice. We constantly run members as independents and on the Communist
party line. The only major exception to this was in the aftermath of
McCarthyism when it was just too much for us to get on the ballot. We are
constantly (including at this very moment) involved in lawsuits challenging
ballot access limitations for third parties etc. We have in the last period
elected Communists to some smaller offices as independents and one as a
Communist to city council in Oregon. We were big in formingthe Progressive
party and the American Labor Party in NY and the Farmer Labor party in Minn.
and in countless other third party movments in all periods of our history.

To my knowledge Solidarity, CoC, Communist Workers Party nor any other
outfit you've been associated with has ever run any candidates for any
public office. Non-participation in electoral struggles is to my mind a big
mistake.

Further I would say it is silly and unMarxist to elevate tactics in
electoral struggle to principal. To say under no circumstances will we ever
support any democrat no matter the issues or circumstances is sectrarian and
silly. We are very involved in Labor party Advocates and help lead several
of the larger LPA coalitions - more importantly, at the local level, like
here in Chicago we have a long history of involvement in helping to build
grassroots independent political organizations in neighborhoods. Some times
these groups do run candidates on the democratic party line - but are
extremely independent (and a big thorn in the side) of the Democratic party
machine - these groups have been instrumental in helping to deminish the
machine. BTW I was elected to a local school council as a Communist -
non-partisan election - but campaigned as a Communist - never crossed my
mind to run as a Democrat.

>
>(c) that it was extremelyt undemocratic in its internal organization and
>sectrarian in its relations to other left organizations (leaving aside the
>issues of fingering "Trotskyists" for Chekist assassination);

Gee Justin, why can't we be friends - I wonder? Despite the charge against
me of being religious - I still have trouble turning the other cheek. We
have great relations with many left organizations - those who deal with us
as equals not attackers. You have no idea about our internal life except
what you've heard from those who left.

>
>(d) that it apologized for a repressive totalitarian dictatorship ruled by
>an exploiting stratum or class (as you like) of bureaucrats in the name of
>socialism and in a way that discredited socialism among the American
>proletariat.

Huh...

>
>All that said I agree with whoever it was who said that for all its
>failing the CPUSA was the most effective mass socialist organization in
>the USA after the Debsian SP, at least through the mid-40s, and that it
>did a lot of good things. I don't think Party members should have nothing but
>shame and regret for the failings of their outfit. They have many
>accomplishments and have an honorable if deeply ambiguous record in the
>annals of the American left. At the same time there is much to be ashamed
>of and regret.

Gee I just love being patronized by smart people. Don't it just gall you
that shame, regret and repentance just don't seem to be in our vocabulary -
if you had more than a superfical knowledge of us you'd know that criticism
and self-criticism are very much in our vocabulary and far more effective
for correcting mistakes than moralisms.

Scott



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list