On Thursday, February 18 at 3:30 p.m. at Wedge Tower, 1415 Louisiana, in downtown Houston, come participate in a rally for just wages for Houston’s hardworking janitors! Your voice is needed for the janitors to be successful!

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

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

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

New technology including use of video and teleconferences will make it easier to have a very inclusive convention discussion. Not just the written word but the spoken word will be part of our pre-convention discussion, making it easier for all members and friends to participate.

The kickoff took place with a splash Thursday, January 21, with a nationwide live streaming web presentation by the party’s national chair, Sam Webb, of our main convention discussion document, “No easy road to the future – but we’ll get there,” followed by a lively question and answer session. The web broadcast is available at cpusa.org.

The main discussion document is a call to build a far-reaching, labor-led coalition for jobs, peace and equality, to win progressive reforms from health care to immigrant rights.

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

Working to build the national the Jobs 4 America Now campaign being organized by labor, civil rights and democratic organizations is seen as a priority.

The document is also a call to expand the Communist Party and Young Communist League, organizations committed to building the widest possible unity for democratic and socialist change.

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

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

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

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

By Ron Gray via Political Affairs

I am inclined to agree with much of the recent article “Save the party.” However, concerning the internet, while not a panacea it can be a very useful tool. I am an internet recruit. Since affiliating myself with the party, I and four other web heads have started a club (pending party acceptance). I have written an article about the news media’s ignoring important statements made by the new CEO of Bank of America which was published, in People’s World. Another member is working on an article and a membership campaign after a furniture factory closing in North Carolina. Our club is working on a campaign to change people’s perception of the party here in the Carolinas. Once quite strong in the Carolinas, we have lost our advantage due to inactivity and the passing of former members. We must embrace this new technology, using it to our best advantage: to drive membership, fund raising and keep comrades informed and motivated. I agree with you that we can’t accept just anyone that sends in an application without some vetting process. There has to be some balance. There might be some people that because of illness or handicap can only participate via internet. But, they may make significant contributions. The ultimate goal must be finding and nurturing active, contributing members. To make the party strong we must have a large tent and allow for exceptions and diversity even in our membership policy. As Communists, Diversity and flexibility have been our strengths and bureaucracy and rigid policy our weakness.

I agree we must differentiate ourselves from the democrats and more closely examine ourselves against our Marxist ideals I agree that any step in the right direction should be embraced wherever it might come from but, we are communists not democrats. Let us boldly proclaim our identity and the noble truths it stands for. If we weaken our stand we run the risk of losing those principles that make us unique. We are a uniquely American communist party but, we must remain in unity and solidarity with our comrades in other countries with a view to worldwide communism. I too wish we could run a potent candidate in every election in America. However, at our current level of popularity I fear we run candidates at the peril of gaining a reputation of being a party of impotent “also rans”. This can become an entrenched perception which is difficult to overcome. Still, at some point we must step up and fight for a leadership position but, it should be in a race where we can give a good account of ourselves and if not win, at least show strength. Let us choose our fights wisely.

Finally, one thing we must not do is allow ourselves to become divided. It’s good to have diversity of opinion and to debate it strongly and openly but when a decision has been made let us come together in solidarity and give it our full support. I believe that it is good that we can criticize our leaders, in fact it is downright healthy and an American tradition to do so. When we do, let it be constructively, offering solutions to our problems and offering no unnecessary offense to our comrades that bear the burden of leadership. The diversity of ideas within our party must not become a “war of ideas” such as exists between democrats and republicans and will be their downfall. We will win by being the party of diversity, ideas, flexibility, compassion, a balanced approach and solidarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World setting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A less malleable world

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The elements of such an intervention could include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jobs and immediate relief

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

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

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

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

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

First Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lineup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations a year in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic direction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjustments in strategic policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lenin once remarked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new emphasis

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

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

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

Our role

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

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

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

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

Fair questions and we should all try to answer them.

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

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

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

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

To be more concrete, our strategic orientation gives us:

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

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

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

Some political and ideological questions

The president doesn’t simply register and reflect the balance of power; he influences it as well; no other person has as much power. To identify him as a centrist Democrat akin to Clinton or Carter conceals more than it reveals; it’s too neat. It doesn’t help us understand him as a political actor and his place in the broader struggle for progressive change. And it can quickly lead to narrow tactics and a wrong-headed strategic policy.

Some say, for example, that the strategic role of the left is to criticize the president, to push him from the left. But is that a good point of departure strategically? Doesn’t it elevate a tactical question to a strategic one?

Criticizing the president (especially in the internet age) takes little imagination or effort, far less than does activating the various forces that elected him — the latter takes a strategic sense, flexible tactics, creative thinking, and hard work. In fact, the president’s report card, it could easily be argued, is better than the coalition that elected him. He doesn’t get an ‘A’, but neither do we.

The point is that criticisms of President Obama should be done in a unifying and constructive way. The success or failure of the administration will resonate for years. A deep imprint will be left on class and racial relations. It is hard to imagine how a successful struggle for reforms can happen without Obama or how anyone other than the extreme right and sections of the ruling class would benefit if his presidency fails.

Attitude towards reform

A very different political and ideological issue that has a bearing on practical politics is the assertion that capitalism has no solutions to the present crisis and can’t be reformed.

If this means that the endemic crises of capitalism (for example, cyclical and structural unemployment, regular crises, overproduction, over-accumulation, etc.) will persist as long as the profit motive is the singular determinant of economic activity, we would agree.

But if it means that anything less than a system-wide change is unimportant, or that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can’t be modified, we would disagree.

We should avoid counterposing the bankruptcy of capitalism against the struggle for reforms under capitalism. Such juxtaposition is unnecessary and counterproductive. If we don’t struggle for the latter (reforms), what we say about the former (systemic nature of problems) will carry little weight nor will we get to where we want to go — socialism.

Capitalism is more elastic than some believe. It changes on its own and is modified by the class struggle. Look at its historical development if you don’t believe so.

Role of the working class

Still another ideological question is the role of the working class in general and the labor movement in particular. The right wing and mass media (not just Fox) either heap abuse on the labor movement or make it invisible. They are well aware of the new developments in organized labor, and recoil at the prospect of a revitalizing labor movement. None of this is a surprise.

What is surprising is that many progressive and left people either have a blind spot when it comes to the labor movement, or see it as just another participant, or refuse to see — even dismiss out of hand — the new developments within it.

Leading up to the AFL-CIO convention, we heard more than once that labor should be “a social movement,” that it should “take on capital,” etc. But, unless you are the hostage of “pure” forms of class struggle, isn’t that what labor is doing, with its election mobilization last year and on issues like health care, war, racism, immigration, climate change, international solidarity, and so forth?

Granted it’s not across the board, the old style of leadership hasn’t completely disappeared, and rank-and-file participation is not where it should be.

But is going over in righteous indignation the litany of sins of the labor movement the most productive thing that we can do? Doesn’t it make far more sense to note the new development and directions, the new thinking, and the new composition of labor’s leadership? Do we think that the transition from the legacy of the Cold War and the so-called Golden Age of capitalism can happen in a day, in a month, in a decade? Change is hard, but when sprouts of change come to the light of day we should nurture them.

Our understanding of Marxism reveals that in the process of exploitation, not only surplus value, but also oppositional tendencies arise — albeit uneven and full of contradictions and inconsistencies — but arise nonetheless to challenge corporate prerogatives and class rule.

An under appreciation of the new developments in labor can only weaken the broader movement for change.

Marxism

Finally, Marxism is an open-ended, integrated, and comprehensive set of ideas to conceptualize and change the world — a worldview. It analyzes the existing and developing tendencies, laws, and contradictions of societies, and especially capitalist society.

Thus, continually deepening our understanding of Marxism’s basic theoretical constructions is of crucial importance to us — not to mention the movement as a whole.

Marxism is not only a science and worldview, but also a methodology.

Marxist methodology absorbs and metabolizes new experience; it gives special weight to new phenomena.

It isn’t about timeless abstractions, pure forms, ideal types, categorical imperatives unsullied by inconvenient facts; it doesn’t turn partial demands, reformist forces, inconsistent Democrats, liberals, social democratic labor leaders, even Blue Dog Democrats, into a contagious flu to be avoided at all costs.

Marxist methodology insists on a concrete presentation of every question and an exact estimate of the balance of forces at any given moment.

As a method of analysis, Marxism emphasizes fluidity, reexamination and rethinking, process, dialectics, and movement; it’s about allowing space for individuals and organizations to change.

We should deepen our understanding of Marxism as a science and methodology. And we should not give too much attention to those who criticize us from the far left. When we do, it cuts down on our ability to think creatively and respond practically to new opportunities and developments.

In the era of the Internet, everyone’s voice is amplified. If some try to turn Marxism into a sacred canon much like the strict constitutional jurists and biblical literalists do with the Constitution and Bible, so be it; if they want to spend all their time looking for examples of right deviations, to the point where they themselves are simply self-satisfied observers of struggle and too busy to build the people’s movement or, in the case of those who are in our party, build our organization and press, so be it.

We will go our own way, focusing our energy and talents on building the working-class movement and our party and press, and be much the wiser for it.

Opening new doors to the party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young people and the YCL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the CPUSA

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

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

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

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

Role of the YCL

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

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

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

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

Urgent necessity to grow — every member’s responsibility

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

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

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

New conditions, new opportunities to grow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing a 21st Century CPUSA and YCL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People’s World/Mundo Popular

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

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

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

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

Political Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinking outside the box

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

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

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

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

Here are some key areas of emphasis:

1. Education – essential to long term recruitment and retention:
   • Study groups, classes, and seminars (at local homes or centers)

   The National Education Commission has study guides; districts should begin developing local teachers. Webinars and online Marxist discussions and classes that reach a larger audience and for state organizations and membership in areas where no club exists. Our teaching of Marxism must be rooted in reality.

2. More public Party/YCL events:
   • Find fresh new ways to present our message and ourselves.
   • Emphasize what we are for and less of what we are against.
3. More actions – political and cultural:
   • Form structures that promote action and engage people with a variety of interests and levels of understanding, i.e. healthcare reform committee, progressive artist collective, poetry slams, mural art projects.
   • These collectives should primarily be based on local membership’ talents and interest
4. Explore and master the use of the Internet and social media:
   • Find new ways to express our vision and our ideas using the Internet
   • Develop local video collectives
   • Develop online clubs and utilize social

   networking sites

Questions that should be asked when developing projects or activities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

By Arthur Shaw via VHeadline

The people of Venezuela, not just Hugo Chavez, are setting up a working class state to replace a bourgeois state. The working class state will have a pristine democratic form, largely defined by the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution. Bourgeois propaganda outlets, like VenEconomy, see a working class state that is not chiefly composed of the bourgeoisie and that doesn’t chiefly exercise state power for the bourgeoisie, as “despotic,” no matter how pristine the democratic form of the working class state.

VenEconomy tries to palm-off its vile class arrogance as democracy. That is what it truly “looks” like.

* Trying to make trouble, VenEconomy wrote “Ramiro Valdes is here as the head of a Cuban technical commission that has come to cope with Venezuela’s current electricity crisis.”

Ramiro Valdes is the Cuban Minister of informatics and communications and one of six vice presidents of Cuba. The technical commission, which Valdes heads, will consider cost-efficient ways to expand the generation of electricity and to reduce the consumption of electricity in Venezuela. Cuba, with a huge force of highly-trained electrical engineers, has extensive experience on the national and international levels in what Cuba calls the “energy revolution” and Valdez has been deeply involved in the energy revolution on the national and international levels. The mass of electrical engineers of many countries largely believe in the monopoly capitalist approach to energy problems, not what revolutionaries call the “energy revolution.”

Many countries, especially in the Caribbean, have sought and accepted Cuban cooperation in their energy revolutions. Most of these countries speak highly of Cuban cooperation in the field of electrical generation and consumption. In addition to cooperation from Cuba, Venezuela has sought and accepted cooperation from Argentina, Brazil, and China on cost-efficient ways to win the energy revolution.

US imperialism is violently opposed to Cuban ideas on how poor or less developed countries can win the energy revolution. US imperialists believe that Cuban ideas about the generation and consumption of electricity adversely affect the interests of monopoly capital, especially the worldwide AES company, in the energy industry. VenEconomy, of course, grovels before US imperialists.

VenEconomy doesn’t believe Valdes is in Venezuela to help win the “energy revolution” … VenEconomy believes Valdes is in Venezuela to do something else. So, VenEconomy asks “The question, then,what is task has Ramiro Valdes been assigned to carry out in Venezuela by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?” VenEconomy answers its own question when it says “Chavez revving up the repression apparatus.”

Why is he allegedly doing this?

At this point, VenEconomy goes queer on us, saying it has two contradictory reasons why the alleged “repression apparatus” is being revved up.

First, Chavez is too weak to survive unless he revs up.

Second, Chavez is so strong that he can afford to rev up…

Obviously, VenEconomy has no idea of what it is talking about.

Relying chiefly on Colombian and Venezuelan terrorists, the bourgeois-led opposition in Venezuela has resorted to violence, especially murder and assaults, as its main electoral tactic.

The opposition is trying to intimidate the Venezuelan voter, by mass murder and mass assaults, into abandoning the revolution. But the increasingly working class state in Venezuela will maintain law and order without revving up some “repression apparatus.”

Indeed, there is no “repression apparatus” to rev up under the current revolutionary government.

By Arthur Perlo via Political Affairs

The economic crisis has brought suffering to every part of the country and every section of the working class. As in past recessions, this crisis has fallen most heavily on communities already suffering, and particularly on people of color and immigrants. This is true of every aspect of the crisis, including foreclosures and evictions and state and local government layoffs and cuts in services.

There are many attempts to divert attention by pitting sections of the working class against one another: white workers against racially and nationally oppressed, African Americans against immigrants and Latinos, young against old, men against women. Whatever the motives, these themes play into the hands of the Wall Street bankers and other corporate interests who are the primary cause of the crisis and obstacles to solutions that must come at their expense. This article, however, will focus primarily on the jobs crisis in the African American community as a critical part of the overall picture.

Even before the crisis, African Americans faced difficult, and in many ways worsening employment opportunities. This crisis has hit all workers hard, including white workers, with employment levels the lowest since the 1930s. But during the best boom years of 1988-90 and 1998-99, the percentage of African Americans employed in each age group just about reached the levels that white workers have fallen to today. Put another way, white workers today are just beginning to face conditions that African Americans faced in the best of times.

Jobs crisis by the numbers

The analysis presented here indicates that between one quarter and one third of all working-age African Americans are unemployed. Three quarters of Black teens are unemployed.

The “official” unemployment figures for December 2009, compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), are 16 percent for African Americans, 13 percent for Latinos, nine percent for whites, yielding an average for all workers of 10 percent. [1] The BLS survey attempts to count everyone who is actively looking for work, regardless of whether they are collecting unemployment. The real situation is far worse. The BLS also counts the invisible unemployed – those who want a job but are not actively looking, and who want a full-time job but can only find part-time work. The BLS’ U-6 rate, which includes the invisible unemployed, is a far more realistic estimate of actual unemployment. The U-6 rate for all workers is 17.3 percent. [2] The U-6 rate can be estimated as 28.0 percent for African Americans and 22.3 percent for Latinos. [3]

For African American men of prime working age (25-54) I estimate the “real” jobless rate at 26 percent. For African American teens (16-19), “real” unemployment is 74 percent. Even for white teens it is 52 percent! [4]

Causes of the Jobs Crisis

The numbers are shocking. African American unemployment rates above 25 percent for men aged 25-54, and nearly 75 percent for teens, mean that in many communities there is almost no chance of finding a job.

Looking at long-term trends is instructive. From 1980 to 2000, an average of about 50 percent of white teenagers (men and women) were employed. [5] The number dropped during recessions, then recovered. After the 2001 recession, white teen employment dropped to about 40 percent. In the current crisis, it has fallen to 30 percent.

In the 1980s, only about 25 percent of Black male teens had jobs. The fluctuations were large – in recessions, there were big losses, and employment peaked above 30 percent in the late 1980s and again in the late 1990s. But it dropped to 20 percent in 2001, and in this crisis has fallen below 15 percent. The pattern for Black female teens followed a different pattern in the 1980s, but is similar today.

In the best years, Black teens were no more likely to be employed than white teens are at the worst time in at least 70 years. This tends to be true of other age groups as well. For men aged 25-54, the best year for African American employment about matched the worst for white workers.

There is widespread recognition that unemployment is at crisis levels in African American communities, although use of the “official” 16 percent jobless rate greatly understates the severity. But there is some confusion over causes. It is often said or implied that African Americans, and youth in particular, lack the eduction, social skills, jobs skills and/or attitude for employment. This explanation ignores the impact of the economic crisis, as well as the reality of discrimination.

Before the economic crisis, roughly 79 percent of Black men aged 25-54 held jobs. Two years later, the figure was 69 percent. Did 10 percent of Black men become uneducated or lose their job skills in a two-year period? Did one quarter of working African American teens suddenly develop a “bad attitude?” The more obvious and correct explanation is simply that the jobs are not there.

Causes of lower pay and lack of jobs: Overt Discrimination

Despite propaganda to the effect that discrimination is a thing of the past, or even that African Americans have an advantage due to “reverse discrimination,” objective studies, as well as anecdotal evidence, indicate that deliberate racial discrimination in hiring is still widespread. Studies show that employers are less likely to even interview someone if they think the applicant is Black.6 Another study concluded that young Black men in general are assumed to be criminals and denied jobs by employers.” [7]

At least since Reagan’s election in 1980, the Federal government has moved away from fighting against racial discrimination. Even before George W. Bush became President, EEOC policy was to ignore clear patterns of unintentional discrimination unless there were specific (individual) complaints. [8] Judicial decisions on affirmative action cases have actually leaned to enforcing discrimination, by making it illegal to take any steps against it.

This trend intensified during the recent Bush administration. His Supreme Court appointments both have bad records. Justice Roberts was one of a close-knit group of conservatives who were part of the Reagan administration’s efforts to dismantle civil rights and outlaw affirmative action. [9] In 2004, the staff of the US Commission on Civil Rights issued a blistering attack on the Bush administration’s record. [10] In 2005, 20 percent of the Civil Rights Division’s lawyers were forced out or quit over policies that reduced civil rights prosecutions by 40 percent.

The Obama administration is attempting to re-orient federal agencies toward supporting, rather than opposing, civil rights. But it is an uphill battle. Last year, the Supreme Court with its right-wing majority ruled against the city of New Haven’s attempt to insure that promotions in the fire department would include African Americans.

Causes of lower pay and lack of jobs: Systemic or Institutional Reasons

Regardless of the attitudes of individuals, systemic or institutional reasons are probably at least as important as overt discrimination for the vastly higher number of unemployed African American workers. These factors operate independent of the deliberate decisions of the individuals doing the hiring.

• “About half of all jobs are still found through personal contacts of some sort… economists also suggest that network effects may help to account for income inequality between races.” [11] Articles in the business press frequently cite the advantages of personal networks both for the jobs seeker and the person doing the hiring, a practice widespread in the IT industry amongst others. [12]

• Geography – jobs have moved from where African Americans live (often in central cities) to suburban and rural areas with few African Americans. The IT industry is a prime example.

• As a result of outsourcing in both corporate and government world, on-job training and promotion paths are disappearing. “’For too many of our people, entry level no longer means entry-level. It means dead end’, says Rodney Glenn [of the NYC Transport Workers Union].” [13] African Americans are particularly affected, because they have fewer personal contacts or educational opportunities to provide alternatives.

• Education: Nationally, only two-thirds of all students and one-half of African American, Latinos and Native Americans graduate high school after four years. In New York City less than 10 percent of African American students get a regents diploma (preferred for college admission). [14] Teachers with less than three years experience teach in minority schools at twice the rate they teach in white schools. [15]

• A criminal record is a legal barrier to employment in many professions, and a practical barrier in many more. [16]

• During the 1960s African Americans made gains in the quantity and quality of manufacturing jobs, then concentrated in big industrial centers. Until the early 1990s, African Americans were as likely to have manufacturing jobs as other racial and ethnic groups. [17] The steep absolute decline in manufacturing jobs since the late1990s was accompanied by a geographic shift – as auto plants closed in Detroit and Chicago, new factories, employing far fewer workers, were built in rural counties of the South where few African Americans lived. As a result of these trends, by 2007 African Americans were 15 percent less likely than other workers to have one of the remaining jobs in manufacturing.

• From 1983 to 2006, union representation declined for all groups, but most sharply for Black and Hispanic workers, least so for whites. [18] For white workers, the union members earn 28 percent more than non-union. The union advantage is 29 percent for Black workers, 50 percent for Latinos, and 34 percent for women. [19]

Stimulus and Beyond

In February, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), more widely known as “the stimulus bill” – not to be confused with the Wall Street bailout (TARP) which was passed under the Bush administration. ARRA has provided some relief from the crisis. It is now reaching its maximum effectiveness, and administration claims that up to 2 million jobs have been created or saved are credible. To what extent has ARRA helped African Americans?

ARRA provided substantial funding to help states pay for and expand Medicaid coverage. African Americans, who are more likely to have low incomes and qualify for Medicaid, probably benefited from this. African Americans also shared in any jobs that were saved or gained in nursing homes and other health care providers. And African Americans, who suffered the greatest job losses, may well have been the greatest beneficiaries of the ARRA’s increase and extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA.

ARRA aid to local governments, including school districts, was distributed in part on the basis of need. Cities with large African American populations generally have high poverty, and qualified for significant assistance. This helped reduce layoffs in school systems and some other government departments, preserving jobs and education quality in schools where a large proportion of students and a significant number of teachers are African American.

On the other hand, according to a report by United for a Fair Economy, “Most of the job-creation projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and other federal initiatives are investments in infrastructure and transportation, “green” building retrofits, and pass-through funds that help states maintain schools and other important programs. All are worthy, but there is no evidence that the jobs these initiatives create are going to the communities most in need. In some cases, the opposite is true.” [20]

What’s Ahead?

The most optimistic forecasts call for a slow economic recovery, with unemployment declining slowly, but remaining high for many years. It is also possible – even likely – that there are new economic shocks ahead, which can cause even more job losses. The Administration and Congress are proposing measures that will, preserve some of the benefits of the existing stimulus. These are urgently needed. For example, beginning later in February millions of unemployed workers will lose their unemployment insurance and health coverage if those measures are not extended. State and local governments will budget for even bigger layoffs and service cuts later this year if help is not forthcoming. Even if passed over intransigent Republican resistance, these measures will not substantially dent the unemployment crisis.

The most effective solution would be to extend the existing stimulus programs on a much larger scale and, in addition, provide funding for direct government employment of millions of people, with special provisions for youth. This could replicate, in modern conditions, the WPA and CCC programs of the 1930s, when millions of people were employed in public works construction that we still use today, as well as community based music, art and theater.

More than 60 organizations have come together in the Jobs for America Now Coalition. The AFL-CIO, Change to Win, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are amongst the leading forces. The Coalition has adopted a 5-point plan, which includes strengthening the safety net, relief for state and local governments, investment in infrastructure, direct employment through public service jobs, and job creation tax credits. It is significant that the plan includes provisions to direct maximum resources to communities and individuals who have been hardest-hit by the economic crisis. The total cost of the plan would be about $400 billion the first year, and would generate between 4.6 million and 6 million jobs.

The Jobs for America Now program is the minimum necessary to seriously address the jobs crisis in general, and particularly in the African American community. But it is also important to fight for measures in the design and implementation that direct greatest resources where the need is greatest. This is not automatic.

In its report State of the Dream 2010, the group United for a Fair Economy provides guidelines for stimulus programs. They include [21]:

• Target job creation in high-unemployment communities. One example, HR 4268, the “Put America To Work Act of 2009,” would fund one million public jobs for workers who have been jobless for at least 26 weeks and low-income workers who have been jobless at least 30 days and need immediate assistance.

• To ensure that stimulus funds reach working class and disenfranchised communities, equity assessments should be required for all federal spending. Demographic data on race, ethnicity, gender, class, and geography will be required for an equity assessment.

• Recommit to affirmative action policies. Affirmative action has a successful history of making inroads for women, people of color, disabled and lower income Americans. This successful tool must be used to narrow the jobs and income gap that separates our “two Americas.”

It is significant that the major labor unions have joined with civil rights organizations and others in the Jobs for America Now Coalition in emphasizing the need to target programs in the hardest-hit areas. It will take a tremendous fight to win.

We should take heart from and learn the lessons of history. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement, with the support of most of organized labor and most working people, won significant gains for African Americans. This period also saw economic and political gains for the entire working class, as the political power of the racist, anti-labor Southern ruling class was challenged. Significant numbers of African Americans began to be elected to Congress, laying the basis for the today’s Quad Caucus a large bloc of consistently pro-union, pro-worker votes – the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Asian American Caucus, and Progressive Caucus.

The huge movement that elected President Obama is a recent example. During the election campaign, union leaders directly challenged the racism that made some white workers reluctant to vote for a Black candidate. As a result of these efforts, a majority of white union members joined with African Americans, Latinos, youth to achieve a remarkable victory.

The same level of unity, organization and mobilization, as well as the willingness to challenge the racist practices and structures that result in massive job discrimination, are necessary today. The goal must be not only to restore employment to the level before the economic crisis, but for African Americans and all Americans to have the opportunity to be employed at useful, productive jobs with union wages, in full and equal proportion.

Notes

[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation for December, 2009. Figures are rounded.

[2] ibid, Table A-12.

[3] The BLS does not provide the U-6 rate for separate demographic groups. My estimate assumes all groups have the same proportion of invisible unemployed.

[4] Author’s estimates based on BLS statistics. The method involves estimating how many would be working if jobs were freely available.

[5] BLS, from Current Population Survey Employment-Population ratio at http://www.bls.gov.

[6] The Ethicist, New York Times Magazine, 5/30/2005. An African American male reports getting more calls when he files resumes under middle name (Raymond) than first name (Malik). This anecdote confirms various studies. See, for example, http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html reporting on a 2003 MIT study. See also http://www.thewashingtonreport.org/?p=65 (August, 2009) which cites a long-time corporate recruiter to the same effect.

[7] Charles Stein, Economic Life, Boston Globe, 7/31/05.

[8] Sally Lehrman, Why Race-Based Data Matters, Institute for Justice and Journalism, Alternet, 10/6/2003, Page 5.

[9] R. Jeffrey Smith et al, Roberts Sought to shift course of civil rights law, Washington Post 7/31/2005 by way of MSNBC.com.

[10] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Redefining Rights in America – the civil rights record of the George W Bush Administration, 2001-2004, Draft report for the Commissioner’s review, September 2004.

[11] Daniel Gross, Economic View – It’s Who You Know. Really. NYT August 22, 2004.

[12] For example, see Art Perlo, The Digital Divide and Institutional Racism, Political Affairs, 2001.

[13] Joel Millman, Promotion Track fades for those starting at Bottom, Wall Street Journal, 6/6/2005.

[14] Bob Herbert, New York Times, 7/21/2005.

[15] Urban League, State of Black America 2005.

[16] According to a New York Times editorial (6/6/2005), the TSA interpreted Patriot Act to make it almost impossible for ex-felons to become long-haul truckers. “Law-abiding ex-offenders will be barred from one of the few professions that have historically been open to them.” (my emphasis). Ex-prisoners are proscribed from many service jobs as well as many construction jobs. A criminal record is associated with a 50 percent reduction in employment opportunities for whites, and a 64 percent reduction for Blacks, for entry level jobs requiring HS education. (Devah Pager, The Mark of a criminal record, University of Wisconsin Madison, June 2002.)

[17] http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/unions_aa_2008_02.pdf. The Decline in African-American Representation in Unions and Manufacturing, 1979-2007 by John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer, Center for Economic and Policy Research.

[18] www.cepr.net Decline in African-American Representation in Unions and Manufacturing, 1979-2006 March, 2007.

[19] Figures for 2009. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, table 2. http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/union2.toc.htm.

[20] United for a Fair Economy, State of the Dream 2010: Jobless and foreclosed in communities of color.

[21] Excerpted from State of the Dream 2010, op. cit.