Here is a tribute to Woody Guthrie on the 100th anniversary of his birthday from Oklahoma:

http://okworkersmonthly.blogspot.com/2012/07/woody-guthries-gift-to-american-culture.html?spref=fb

By James Thompson

Some of the people, notably G.L. Morrison and Dave Adkinson, have valiantly attempted to defend the leadership of the CPUSA and question any improprieties on the part of the party.

Below you will find an exact reproduction (with personal telephone numbers removed) of the e-mail exchange between James Thompson and John Bachtell leading up to “dropping” of James Thompson’s membership in the CPUSA. Leadership did not feel the need to file charges or even inform James Thompson of the reason for his dropping as required by the CPUSA constitution.

John Bachtell’s messages are full of contradictions. He thanks James Thompson for his e-mail response but alleges in the same message that James has made no response to his attempts to contact him. He also fails to address the fact that James Thompson contacted John Bachtell on 6/13/12 and invited him to Houston and requested the details of his visit. Bachtell did not respond until 6/30/12 demanding an immediate meeting. At this point, James Thompson was out of town on vacation and returned on 7/1/12. However, it was inconvenient to meet at this point and the day of Bachtell’s and Juan Lopez’ departure, 7/2/12, was also inconvenient since James Thompson had to work all day.

Some might ask why James Thompson did not clear his schedule to meet with John Bachtell and Juan Lopez. Of course, the obvious answer is that it was not possible. However, by the time they contacted James Thompson, it was obvious that they were attempting a hostile takeover of the Houston club. The question that went through my mind was “Why should I meet with these people who obviously have hostile intentions towards our club?” The other question that went through my mind was “How can I reasonably call together a meeting of the whole club in such a short time?” This reveals naivete on my part. John Bachtell and Juan Lopez did not want a meeting with the whole club.

In the meantime, I was receiving information from people Mr. Bachtell and Mr. Lopez met with indicating they were being told that the original Houston club was being folded into a new club which would be “shepherded” by the national office. People were also telling me that Bachtell and Lopez told them that they should ignore any e-mails from me and should not attend any meetings called by me. They also told people that Houston was not unique according to our members. They told our members that they were organizing new clubs in other cities where there were clubs that did not agree fully with the opinions of the national leadership. They cited Massachusetts as an example.

I’m reminded of the lines from Joe Hill:

“And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Says Joe, ‘What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize,
Went on to organize.

Joe Hill ain’t dead, he says to me,
Joe Hill ain’t never died.
Where working men are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side,
Joe Hill is at their side.

From San Diego up to Maine,
In every mine and mill –
Where working men defend their rights
It’s there you’ll find Joe Hill
It’s there you’ll find Joe Hill.

I am glad to be writing these little articles on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Woody Guthrie. His fighting spirit should be an inspiration for all working people. I grew up not far from Okemah, Oklahoma, where Woody grew up. I’m proud to be an Okie even if I’m not from Muskogee. I’ve been listening to KPFT in Houston and WWOZ in New Orleans all day who have been running back to back tributes to Woody, one of the greatest members of the CPUSA.

We need more people like Woody and less people like Earl Browder and Sam Webb and their cronies.

Following is the e-mail exchange between John Bachtell and James Thompson:

Hi Pat,

We are sending this email after numerous attempts to speak with you in person and by phone, without response.

It is clear your continued actions are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party USA. Therefore, based on a discussion in the National Board you have been dropped from membership.

Please turn over all Party records and finances in your possession to the newly organized and officially recognized Houston club.

If you have any questions about this action please feel free to call me at ———-.

John Bachtell
CPUSA
July 8, 2012

Hi Pat,

Thanks for returning my email. We have also made several attempts to reach you by phone and have left messages to schedule a meeting with you. We have not gotten a response yet.

We would be happy to meet with you anytime and anyplace at your convenience Sunday or Monday until midafternoon when we depart.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

John Bachtell
(John provided his telephone number here)

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM,wrote:

My wife and I are in San Antonio now. I asked Bernard about the meeting last Sunday at our monthly meeting and he said he didn’t know anything about the meeting with you and Juan.

We will return to Houston tomorrow, however I have scheduled a phone call with a Union brother from NY at the time you propose.

I would be happy to meet with you the next time you are in Houston. Please show us the courtesy of giving us advance notice so that we can gather the whole club together to meet with you. We feel that informing us at the last minute is disrespectful.

Pat
________________________________________
From: John Bachtell
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:21:50 -0500
To: Paul Subject: Re: Meeting in Houston

Hi Pat,

As you know Juan and I are in Houston. We along with Bernard would like to meet with you while we are here. We propose 7 pm Sunday at the Kim Son restaurant (downtown at 59th and Jefferson)

Please let me know if this is good for you.

Sincerely,

John

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
Dear John –

We have talked over the phone in the past.

We understand that you are likely to come to Houston in the near future. We certainly would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our points of common ground as well as differences. Some members have already expressed interest in such a meeting. We want to work together to build maximum unity and resolve differences in a mutually respectful and beneficial manner.

However, we don’t know the details of your visit. Please let us know if you would be available to meet with us and if you need us to make arrangements for a meeting place, etc.

We look forward to welcoming you to Houston.

Peace & solidarity
Pat Thompson
Club Chair, Houston Communist Party
(Pat provided his telephone number here)

By James Thompson

Dave Adkinson writes in his critical analysis of the Houston CP club:

“If those you criticise are as malicious as you say the i wonder why i cant find anything on the web where “they” sling mud at you and your former club.”

We applaud Mr. Adkinson’s efforts to provide some critical analysis of our club, but his arguments fall a bit short. Here is a posting from our Texas district leadership about our website which was posted on 11/28/11. The link is: http://tx.cpusa.org/houstonweb.htm .

We recently received the following statement from CPUSA leadership:

Statement on Houston Phony Web Site

The web page calling itself the Houston Communist Party (http://houstoncommunistparty.com/ ) and the associated Facebook page and Twitter feed are not affiliated with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The person or persons behind the web site know full well that the site does not reflect the views and positions of our party. By undemocratically and falsely identifying the site as affiliated with the CPUSA they are deliberately sowing confusion and misinformation.

The Texas Communist Party web site at (http://tx.cpusa.org/ ) is a web site of the CPUSA that is endorsed and supported by the party membership in Texas and the National Committee of the CPUSA.

National Board CPUSA

It should be explained that the reason Houston put up its own website was that the Texas District leadership repeatedly refused to send us the names of people from Houston who contacted the national website. I spoke directly to Sam Webb, Jarvis Tyner and many others and made the simple request that the names of people who contacted the national website or state website from Houston be provided to us so that we could attempt to recruit them into our club. This was at a time when I was writing many articles for the PWW and PW. At this time, I was also invited to and was attending party conferences at various locations around the country to include the conference on African American equality in St. Louis, Missouri, and regional conferences in El Paso, Texas and Oakland, California. I spoke to Sam Webb at the meeting in Oakland and to Jarvis Tyner at the march on Wall Street in NYC. I also made up the slogans for the signs used in the march on Wall Street as requested by Libero della Piana. I was also a delegate to the 2005 convention in Chicago and wrote the front page article for the PWW about the CPUSA support of the strike against the Congress Hotel in Chicago. We elected a delegate from Houston to the 2008 CPUSA convention. This individual is an accomplished journalist and could have put various party leaders on the Pacifica network. In fact, I suggested this to leadership and it was ignored.

The reason for putting up the website was simple. We wanted people in Houston to be able to contact us.

One of our current members attempted to contact us through the national website and state website within the last year and a half. He was ignored by the national office. When he contacted the state directly, he was told that our club in Houston did not exist. He found us by our website.

When we put up our website, we were told by district leadership in Dallas that we should take it down and that the party should file a lawsuit against us for putting up the website.

I wonder how many people in the party really think that these actions by party leadership represent a real desire to build the party and fully support one of its most active clubs. Instead of expressing appreciation for the hard work of comrades in Houston, leadership has chosen to split and divide our original club and fecklessly attempt to depose its elected leader.

Nevertheless, we continue to survive and thrive. We will continue to fight for the working class no matter what CPUSA leadership does to us. We will not surrender. We will not back down. We will continue to build our club since we believe the Communists will take up their historical role as the vanguard party of the working class. We believe that once again the CPUSA will fight for peace, civil rights and will return to an anti-imperialist stance. We believe the CPUSA will fight once again to enact legislation for working people such as single payer health care or a national health care system and the employee free choice act. We believe the CPUSA can and will fight anti-communist laws and other forms of voter suppression. We believe the CPUSA can and will field candidates for public office on its own ticket. We believe the CPUSA can and will be a fully democratic organization and operate from the bottom up rather than the top down.

By A. Shaw

“Are you seriously congratulating yourself on stealing the dues from the members of the CPUSA? On childishly withholding websites, FB profile and other things which show only that you INTEND to mislead and confuse anyone looking for the local branch of the CPUSA? You can’t vote to not dissolve, it was not in your power to admit yourselves to the CPUSA in the first place and it is not in your power to insist you still are “the same club”. Any more than if you were expelled from the Boy Scouts of America would there be an ounce of logic in insisting you are the REAL Boy Scouts. If you have any integrity, show it,” G.L. Morrison heatedly writes against the Houston club after the split of Houston Communists by intrigue of national CP leaders.

oooo

Thank you Mr. Morrison. Even though I strongly disgree with what you say, I agree with your right to say it and I’m glad you exercised your right to say it here.

As for “Are you seriously congratulating yourself on stealing the dues?”

The funds of the Houston Club belong to the members of the Houston club. When members of the club quit the club, the quitters lose their right to vote on the disposition of the funds of the club, because the Houston club doesn’t entitle non-members or former members to vote on funds or on anything else. So, the club can’t “steal” what already belongs to it.

As for “childishly withholding websites.”

The argument in the preceding paragraph dealing with funds applies to websites, too.

As for “You can’t vote to not dissolve.”

We have in fact so voted, because our reality is a social and political relation, not an opinion of CP national leaders.

As for “if you were expelled from the Boy Scouts.”

We defer to your opinion about Boy Scouts.

We are closely watching what takes place in the CPUSA. We see the
similarity in our fight with right opportunism twenty years ago here,
but of course the stakes are rising with the crisis of capitalism
right around the world. It is not odd that ideological wavering
arises as revolutionary organizations are tested in the struggle and
as the need for struggle intensifies.

Keep up the fight; workers still have a world to win, for a while at
least. As we said, “We need affirmative action for Marxists in our
party.” Our last general secretary Wm. Kashtan correctly appraised
the mass expulsions, loyalty oaths and “trusteeships” imposed within
our party by the Hewison gang in 1990 as being copied from the
right-wing business union model of controlling members.

Peace and Socialism,
A Canadian comrade

I of course sympathize with the people who were expelled. But the question for me is, what can be done now? Do you plan to appeal inside the Party? Do you plan to form a new party? Do you plan to join CCDS? Are you still making up your mind?

I don’t know if you’ll answer, but if you do, I would like for you to answer another question: how many people were expelled? Your web page states that 4 people went into a Webbite club, but doesn’t say how many people didn’t–and that’s pretty important to whatever you might want to do.

I am an ex-Party member from years ago who thought of rejoining but couldn’t accept the Webb changes. For more than a year I have followed your web page and have applauded everything except its praise for Stalin.

Lincoln Whitehall

By A. Shaw

Lenin defines revolution as the passing of state power from one class to another. Revolutionaries often overlook the definition of revolution.

Clearly, a proletarian revolution is the passing of state power from some other class to the workers. Venezuela is important for US revolutionaries, because a passing of state power from the bourgeoisie to the working class is taking place in the South American country. During the last 13 years of revolutionary struggle, less than half of state power has passed to the workers. In Venezuela, the workers were able to win a small amount of power using the democratic form of the state. This is way many US revolutionaries see the US revolution happening. In Venezuela, this small amount of power included winning the presidency by revolutionary Hugo Chavez, winning a parliamentary majority by revolutionaries, and the appointment of revolutionary majority to the supreme court. But the bourgeoisie still holds powerful positions in the bureaucracy, military, and police and, again, the bourgeoisie exercises more than half of state power. During the 13 years in which the working class and bourgeoisie have shared state power, the revolutionaries have gradually dismantled some key positions held by the bourgeoisie. So, things are moving in the right direction, but at a slow pace. This is the way some US revolutionaries expect things to develop in the USA.

However, the main difference between US and Venezuelan revolutionaries is that the Venezuelans have acquired a high level of electoral skill and US revolutionaries have none at all.

PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

Many US revolutionaries are turned off by the Venezuelan revolution because they can’t see the difference between social democracy and proletarian democracy. Social democracy is social programs under a bourgeois state because state power doesn’t passed from one class to another. Proletarian democracy is social programs under a proletarian state because state power passes, sometimes swiftly and other times slowly, from one class to another. The Venezuelan revolution is an emerging and nascent proletarian democracy. Venezuela has social programs in health care, education, housing, nutrition, etc. They are called “Missions.” In addition to these social programs, state power of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government is passing to the working class. The passing of power in the military, police, and bureaucracy from the bourgeoisie to the workers is harder to effect. But it is being done. So far, only a small amount of state power has passed. Whether state power passes from one class to another doesn’t depend on whether the path to power is electoral or military or conspiratorial. The electoral, conspiratorial as well as the military paths to power can result in a passing or in a failure to pass state power.

Anyway, in less than three months, the presidential election will take place in Venezuela. A lot is at stake, nationally and internationally. This week, the Venezuelan presidential entered the US presidential race.

On July 10, Pres. Barack Obama told a Miami TV station “But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chavez has done over the past several years has not had a serious national security impact on us.”

The next day, Mitt Romney, the reactionary GOP candidate, bit Obama. “The idea that this nation [Venezuela], this president [Chavez], doesn’t pose a national security threat is simply naive and an extraordinary admission on the part of this president [Obama] to be completely out of touch with what is happening in Latin America,” Romney said.

Here’s my take on “what is happening” in the Venezuelan presidential.

Bravado is often defined as feigned confidence. Bravado seems to be strategy of Venezuelan reactionaries supporting Henrique Capriles Radonski in the race for Venezuelan president set for Oct. 7 this year.

In over 30 opinion polls on the presidential race conducted by reactionary as well as liberal pollsters between March 2012 and July 2012, Capriles, the reactionary candidate, has trailed Pres. Hugo Chavez, the revolutionary candidate, by a double-digit margin. One poll however conducted in March limited Chavez’ lead over Capriles to only five points.

MISSING REACTIONARIES

It’s proverbial in Venezuelan politics that revolutionaries own about 60% of the electorate and reactionaries own about 40%. The 30 polls show that Chavez is getting 57% and sometimes 58% or even 59%. In other words, Chavez getting what he’s expected to get. Now, Capriles is expected to get about 40% of the electorate. The polls show that Capriles bounces around between 24% and 35%, well below the 40% he’s expected to get. So, some reactionaries in the electorate are withholding their support from Capriles. Why? Reactionaries say (1) some of their supporters are afraid to disclose their political preferences to pollsters or (2) some reactionaries are genuinely undecided. Neither of these explanations makes any sense.

Everybody is trying to figure out why so many reactionaries are holding back and pulling away from Capriles.

As Capriles falls further and further behind Chavez in the polling, reactionaries express greater and greater certainty about Capriles’ victory on Oct. 7. At one time, reactionaries were only “certain” of a Capriles victory. Now they are “absolutely certain” of his victory. In early July, with about three months left in the campaign, the reactionaries supporting Capriles brag that they can now “guarantee” Capriles’ victory on Oct. 7.

STREETS

Reactionaries argue that polls don’t tell the whole story. They say Capriles is ahead of Chavez in the streets, even though Capriles trails Chavez in the polls.

On July 10, Capriles turned out about 300,000 thousand people in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to celebrate his registration as a presidential candidate. On July, 11, the next day, Chavez turned out about million people to celebrate his registration.

Capriles has campaigned hard in the streets since March. But streetwalking hasn’t help him to improve his numbers.
Chavez hasn’t done any streetwalking in the campaign. But he is way ahead of Capriles in the polls. Although Chavez has not been in the streets, his campaign organization has been in the streets, visiting 1.3 million homes during a nine month period between July 2011 and March 2012. As election day nears, the Chavez’ organization will send hundreds of thousands campaign workers into the streets to contact at least 2.6 million households in only a few weeks.

The Chavez campaign must not over-visit voters because over-visiting wears out the welcome mat. The important things are a gigantic effort with early voting and an unprecedentedly huge Get-Out-The-vote operation on election day.

RIOTS

Some reactionaries threaten to riot on election day if Capriles loses.

The government will deploy over a 100,000 troops to protect voters, polls, and the electoral process. Another 100,000 will be on call if something big happens. Reactionaries will not have ground for rioting because teams of international observers will monitor the voting with unprecedented access to polling places.

If the rioting happens, there is a possibility that US imperialists who dominate the bourgeois regime in Washington will try to intervene. Inciting violence, Mitt Romney, the reactionary US presidential candidate, hints he will advocate an US aggression against Venezuela, if an opportunity presents itself.

CANCER

Reactionaries also argue that Chavez is sick with cancer and he may not make it to Oct. 7. The voters have known about Chavez’ battle with cancer since July, 2011. But the polls this year between March and July 2012, with one solitary exception, have consistently shown Chavez with a double-digit lead over Capriles. The lead has been anywhere between 13 and 30 points for Chavez. So, Chavez’ battle with cancer has not ,so far, hurt him electorally.

As for the prediction that Chavez will die before Oct. 7, reactionaries are not renown for their gift of prophecy, Just a few months ago, reactionaries went into a frenzy predicting the date of Chavez’ demise. None of the prophecies got more media attention than that of US propagandist Dan Rather who reported he had reliable inside information that Chavez would die in two months. The two months ended on June 30 with Chavez still alive. It is slowly beginning to dawn on reactionaries that they cannot rely on the mere possibility of Chavez’ death as their “guarantee” for victory on Oct 7.

POLLS

Reactionaries say they are “certain” of victory on Oct. 7 because polls are inaccurate or, indeed, some of them say polls are no good at all. These polls generally find two things. First, Chavez has a big lead over Capriles. Second, Capriles at present is more popular than any of the likely successors if Chavez dies before Oct. 7. The reactionaries passionately reject the first finding — that is, Chavez’ lead over Capriles — but they embrace the second finding — that is, Capriles’ lead over likely successors.

So, reactionaries are two-faced about the polls. They recognize the part of the polls that is favorable to them as true. But they deny the truth of the part that is unfavorable.

Revolutionaries generally acknowledge that the part of the poll which is unfavorable to them is a matter of concern.

MURDERS

Reactionaries boast that they have a campaign issue that will carry them into the presidential palace. They say their issue is crime, insecurity, and the high murder rate. They say insecurity replaces Capriles’ support for the Missions or social programs as the signature issue of his campaign.

Insecurity has been a really serious problem in Venezuela during the 13 years that the revolutionaries have been in power. The country averaged one major election a year during the 13 years of revolutionary power. The revolutionaries have lost only one major election in 13 years and this solitary 2007 defeat over constitutional reform had nothing to do with insecurity. This is first time that revolutionaries have faced an opponent who is slick enough to make insecurity the principal issue of his campaign. Being a serious problem is one thing, but being the main political issue is another thing. It’s not clear yet how much traction, if any, Capriles will get from making insecurity the centerpiece of his campaign. He doesn’t have a long time to show results. Meanwhile, Chavez is getting tremendous traction from the housing mission which built in a year and a half about a quarter million homes for workers and the poor. Over a million people already occupy the quarter of million homes. The bourgeois media spreads false propaganda that only 34,000 homes have been built. But nobody believes this lie.

The remainder of the campaign will likely be a struggle between housing and insecurity themes for media prominence.

BOURGEOIS MEDIA

Finally, the reactionaries argue that they will win in Oct. because the bourgeois media at home and around the world support Capriles.

The bourgeois media in Venezuela constitute about 85% of the media. Venezuelan revolutionaries are remarkably successful in discrediting the bourgeois media by consistent references to its class character and its falsification policies. More and more, Venezuelan revolutionaries expose “the media “as bourgeois, capitalist, rich, millionaire, privileged, etc. The workers and the poor in Venezuela know they are not bourgeois, capitalist, rich, millionaire, privileged, etc. So, the mass of the working class conclude that the news and the line of the bourgeois media are not in the interests of the workers. The main tactic of the bourgeois media in support of Capriles is daily showings of horrendous pictures of murder victims sprawled in the streets. The murderers seem to coordinate their random killings with the political needs of the desperate Capriles campaign.

The 15% of the Venezuelan media that is non-bourgeois, is mostly proletarian and government owned. It is small compared to the bourgeois media, but the non-bourgeois media enjoys great credibility with the working class and the poor because the non-bourgeois media usually takes the side of the workers and because it has a high reputation for veracity. There is element in the non-bourgeois media called the “alternative” or the “community” media which usually supports revolutionaries.

Venezuelan law gives the president the power to compel all media to broadcast live certain messages from the president. Chavez isn’t shy about the exercise of this power.

The capitalist media around the world, especially in the USA, exerts a powerful influence on the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and middle class. But the foreign media has very limited influence over the working class, not because it’s bourgeois but because it’s foreign.

Capriles has campaigned for four months — from March to June — with solid backing of the bourgeois media. But his standing in polls remains low. Why should continued solid backing of the bourgeois media make any difference in the campaign between July and October?

If Capriles’ prospects rest on the support of the “lying cappie [capitalist] press,” he should quit right now.

CONCLUSION

Reactionaries in Venezuela are putting on a very good show of bravado, strutting and bragging about their “certainty” of victory. This show is perhaps the only thing that prevents the bottom from falling out of their pathetic campaign.