Month: July, 2012
Letter to the editor regarding the dropping of a local member of the party
| July 12, 2012 | 1:34 pm | Action | 1 Comment

I am really upset and angry that the National Board revoked your membership. You have my full support and solidarity. Now they are expelling their critics. So much for inner party democracy. We saw the same thing happen in Canada in the early 90s when the Hewison leadership began expelling its criticis. These guys want to eliminate all criticism and build a party of passive members who just accept orders. John (Bachtell) did not even provide any clear reasons why “your continued actions are incompatible.” Like many members who are concerned about the direction Webb has taken the Party, you bravely spoke up.

Anyways, I am glad that you are remaining in the Houston Club. As the Webb leadership seems hellbent on turning what is left of the CPUSA into an appendage of the Democratic Party, I think it is important that Communists maintain local clubs wherever possible as a nucleus for a new Marxist party that will have to be formed in the near future when the time is right.

A comrade in Canada

Will the real Communist Party please stand up?
| July 11, 2012 | 10:10 pm | Action | 21 Comments

By James Thompson

As the CPUSA slides off into ideological, philosophical and political obscurity and isolation, we in Houston have been privileged to witness the party in action, no pun intended. CPUSA leadership has received sharp criticism from Houston as well as around the country and across the globe. There has been no detectable response from leadership to the sharp criticism. However, there has been a recent flurry of self-destructive activity rather than any kind of logical, reasonable advocacy of their untenable positions or any attempts to engage in fair and open dialogue and debate.

The CPUSA, under the leadership of Sam Webb, has embarked upon tactics to deal with their local clubs which might be characterized as similar to the mindless game shows that people watch on TV. The script goes like this: anointed party leaders arrive unannounced in cities where there are clubs which challenge the political line of the leadership. At this point, they start the game show which might be called “Will the real Communist Party please stand up?” They typically meet with the most troubled and troublesome members of the club they are trying to dissolve. They also contact people who have contacted the party website recently. They meet with these people individually, not as a group. The attempt is to isolate the members of the original club and split off the weaker and newer members. As they meet with these individuals, the fun starts. They denounce the original club as not being recognized as a legitimate club of the CPUSA. They announce the formation of a new club which is fully recognized and anointed by CPUSA leadership. They attempt to peel off the members of the original club and fold them into the new club. They also seek to swallow the club’s resources with one gulp and attempt to slander the original club’s leadership. The end of the game show is always disappointing because only the most craven sycophants of the party leadership win the kiss of death from the CPUSA leadership. And kiss of death they do get. Once the fun is over, the new club is left to fend for itself without any support from leadership. Typically, these new clubs fade out quickly and cease to function.

In Houston, the story follows the rigid script as discussed in an earlier article by A. Shaw posted on this website.

This script has been played out in many cities and is currently playing in Houston and the Northeast and West. It is probably playing in other areas of the country as well.

In Houston, I am the elected chair of the Houston Communist Party. Leadership arrived in Houston on June 29, 2012 and started meeting individually with club members. They did not respond to an invitation issued by me on June 13, 2012 to plan and organize a meeting with all the members of the club. Instead, they contacted me by phone and e-mail on June 30, 2012 and proposed to meet with me individually and immediately. At the time they contacted me, I was in San Antonio on vacation with my wife. I responded that I was not available and that they should show me courtesy and respect when they request a meeting with me. I told them I would be happy to organize a meeting of the entire club to hold a reasonable and respectful dialogue with them, but needed advance notice in order to plan such a meeting. They persisted in only requesting an individual meeting with me. They made no mention of any charges against me in this contact. On July 10, 2012, one of the party leaders sent me an e-mail informing me that I had been “dropped” from membership in the CPUSA. In doing so, they clearly violated Article VII of the party constitution which reads:

ARTICLE VII – Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals

SECTION 1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, any member or officer of the Party may be reprimanded, put on probation, suspended for a specified period, removed from office, dropped or expelled from the Party for actions detrimental to the interests of the Party and the working class, for factionalism, for making false statements in an application for membership, for financial irregularities, or for advocacy or practice of racial, national or religious discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

No action, including dropping, may be taken against a member without notifying him or her of the action and the reason for it. Assistance should be given to help comrades to overcome weaknesses and shortcomings, when possible.

SECTION 2. Subject to the provisions of this Article, any member shall be expelled from the Party who is a strikebreaker, a provocateur, engaged in espionage, an informer, or who advocates force and violence or terrorism, or who participates in the activities of any group which acts to undermine or overthrow any democratic institutions through which the majority of the American people can express their right to determine their destiny.

SECTION 3. Charges against individual members or committees may be made by any member or Party committee to the club of which the accused is a member or to the appropriate higher committee having jurisdiction.

All such charges shall be handled expeditiously by an elected trial committee of the club or appropriate higher body. The trial committee shall hear charges, make recommendations and then disband.

SECTION 4. All accused persons concerned in disciplinary cases, except publicly self-admitted informers and provocateurs, must be notified of the charges against them, shall have the right to appear, to bring witnesses, including non-members if agreed to by the trial committee, and to testify. The burden of proof shall be on the accusers.

SECTION 5. After hearing the report of the trial committee, the club or leading committee having jurisdiction shall have the right to decide by a two-thirds vote upon any disciplinary measure, including expulsion. Disciplinary measures taken by leading committees shall be reported to the club of each accused member. Higher bodies must be informed of all disciplinary actions above a reprimand. There shall be an automatic review of all expulsions by the next higher body.

SECTION 6. Any member or committee that has been subject to disciplinary action has the right to appeal to the next higher body up to the National Convention, whose decision shall be final. The National, State (or District) or other leading committee shall set a hearing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appeal and notify the appellant of the hearing date. When, however, the appeal is to a State, District or National Convention, the appeal shall be acted upon by the Convention following the filing of the appeal, provided that such appeal is made at least 30 days prior to the convention.

So, in Houston, the game show evolved into a new twist. The new twist is “Will the real Communist please stand up?” It should be noted that the leader of the new, officially recognized club of the CPUSA, according to reports from party members in other parts of the country, is a former member of the Spartacist league in California. He has a history of campaigning against the United Farmworkers and called for workers to break the strike of the farmworkers because Cesar Chavez was a “bourgeois sellout.” This individual has not written a single article for the party press. I, on the other hand, have a history of writing hundreds of articles for the party press to include the People’s Weekly World and People’s World. Many of these articles were reproduced on the Texas Communist Party website. More recently, I have published articles in the Morning Star, People’s Voice and Unity, the paper of the Irish Communist Party.

The leader of the newly christened club in Houston has attacked me for not following “Democratic Centralism.” It should be remembered that Democratic Centralism refers to “diversity of opinion and unity of action.” Currently, the CPUSA viciously quashes any diversity of opinion and proposes no action which might unify the party. Indeed, leadership turned up its nose at an effort to overturn anti-Communist laws in Texas proposed by this writer. Instead of supporting this effort, they dropped me from membership in the party. Which side are they on?

One of the prominent members of the newly christened club contributed to the article posted on the Houston website entitled “Sam Webb: which side are you on?” Indeed, all club members fully supported the article at the time it was posted including the new leader of the split off sycophantic club. The treachery and hypocrisy of this new club created in the image of CPUSA leadership is obvious.

People in Houston are perplexed by the heavy-handed party process. They are having a hard time believing that national leadership can blow into town unannounced and collude with the sneakiest and most negative elements of the club to split and divide a functioning and growing club. They are not used to being robbed of their basic democratic rights and being subjected to the dictates of an Imperial CPUSA.

Although the party leadership has proposed the abandonment of basic party concepts such as the vanguard role of the party, class struggle, Leninism, democratic centralism and seeks to censor any discussion of party policy, a few individuals can always be enlisted in an attempt to undermine a truly working class organization. Indeed, people like me who disagree with the policy of supporting uncritically the imperialist Obama administration are quickly dropped from party membership without regard to the constitutional process. This says nothing about the destruction of the party press and publications and the failure to fight against anti-Communist laws across the country. This says nothing about the delivery of important party documents and artifacts to a bourgeois University for safekeeping. This says nothing about the failure of the party to run candidates for public office since the 1980s. This says nothing about the proposal of party leadership to drop the words “Communist” and “party.” This says nothing about the four international Communist Parties (Greece, Mexico, Canada and Germany) who have sharply, publicly and openly criticized the political line of the CPUSA.

The Houston Communist Party has been attacked from the left by anarchists and Trotskyites who have sought to demoralize us. We have been attacked by CPUSA national leadership. We have been attacked by right wing ideologues such as Glenn Beck. We view these attacks as confirmation that we are headed in the right direction. We are here to stay. We are growing. We will not back down. We will continue to stand up for the working class because we are of, by and for the working class. It is clear which side our attackers and detractors are on. It is clear which side we are on. Our interests and the interests of the CPUSA leadership are irreconcilable.

PHill1917@comcast.net

Some thoughts on recent CPUSA activities in Houston
| July 10, 2012 | 9:33 pm | Action | 4 Comments

By A. Shaw

John Bachtell and Juan Lopez, two national leaders of the CP, split the Houston club of the CP during their visit to Houston, Texas between June 29 and July 3, 2012. Before their arrival, Bachtell and Lopez were invited by the club’s leader, Pat, to meet with the whole Houston club. But Bachtell and Lopez chose to go behind the club’s back and meet individually with members and some non-members of the Houston Club.

Bachtell and Lopez formed a new club in Houston composed of some former members of the old club who defected to the new club and some non-members of the old club who joined the new club.

Tactically, Bachtell and Lopez may have blundered in their intrigue. They should have accepted Pat’s invitation to meet with the whole Houston club and then asked the whole club to endorse the views of the national CP. As a result of their possible blunder, the former members of the old Houston club can no longer vote in the old club. Of course, non-members in the old club who just joined the new club can’t vote in the old club.

Thus, the old club is now almost totally made up of advocates of proletarian democracy while this new club, created during Bachtell and Lopez’ visit, is totally made up of proletarian oligarchs addicted to intrigue. The new club is a kind of local replica of the national CP. However, the national CP, unlike its newly-created local version, is a fossilized proletarian oligarchy.

After the split caused by the intrigue of Bachtell and Lopez, the old club met July 4. Six members showed up for that meeting. The vote was 5 opposed to dissolving the club with one abstention. The next vote was 6 opposed to surrendering the website with 0 in favor. The next vote was 6 opposed to surrendering the club dues with 0 in favor. Three members voted absentee to ratify the club’s decisions arrived at on July 4. So, in practice as well as in theory, the old club has now at least nine members. Of these 9 members, 8 are opposed to dissolving the club and 9 are opposed to surrendering the website and/or the finances.

On July 4, the old club voted to disregard the intrigue of the two national CP leaders seeking to dissolve the old club and to set up a solitary new club in Houston. While affirming its own existence, the old club voted to recognize the new club as an entity of the CP even if the new club refuses to return the same courtesy to the old club. The old club on July 4 also voted for continued affiliation with the national CP although the national CP may not — for a while — recognize the old club in Houston.

In classic oligarchic style, on July 9, Bachtell emailed Pat to inform him that the National Board had decided to “drop” him from membership in the CPUSA. The e-mail further commanded Pat to turn over all party records and club dues to the newly formed, fully recognized Houston club.

A. Shaw, a member of the old Houston club, argues that intrigue by national CP leaders aiming (1) to remove Pat as chair of the old club and (2) to “drop” Pat from the CPUSA membership violates the principles of proletarian democracy and therefore the intrigue of the national office is null. Shaw argues the members of the Houston club elected the chair of the club. Thus, the chair was not selected by national leaders. Members of the Houston club have in fact elected Pat as the chair of the club and his term of service has not expired nor has he been removed by the members of the club. Indeed, the decisions, mentioned above, reached July 4 by the old club implicitly affirm Pat as chair. So, Pat remains chair of the old club.

As for as the dropping of Pat from the CPUSA is concerned, it is the view of the members of the old club that the national leaders of the CPUSA are unjustly retaliating against Pat chiefly for his exercise of his rights under the principle of freedom of expression which is fundamental to nascent proletarian democracy, to fading bourgeois democracy, and even to the duties of “each” CP member under Article VI, Section 2 of the constitution of the CP which declares:

Each member shall critically evaluate the work of the Party
collectives and his/her own activity, with the aim of improving
the work of the Party, its bodies, and his or her own activity.
The National Committee and leadership at all levels shall take
the initiative and give the lead for the development of the fullest
critical evaluation and self-evaluation in regard to improving its work.
(Article VI, Section 2)

Prompted by both the word and the spirit of proletarian democracy which is coming into being, the members of the old Houston club believe it is an unjust act for the CP to expel a member for his or her performance of a party duty — namely to “critically evaluate the work of the Party,” as Art. VI, Sec. 2 requires.

So, this national CP in NYC may capriciously announce the dropping of Pat in Houston. Let national do so if it likes.

But Pat remains a member, with excellent standing, in the old Houston club of the CP.

In the spirit of proletarian democracy extolled by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the old Houston club reaches out in solidarity with all clubs of the CP, especially those clubs which embrace the principle of proletarian democracy over troglodyte, fossilized proletarian oligarchy which afflicts all levels of the CP.

We in Houston have recently heard that the national office of the CP now officially refuses to recognize the old Houston club as an affiliate of CP. The old Houston club had anticipated this pettiness from the national.

Many CP clubs throughout the USA — which NYC still recognizes — complain that national recognition of their clubs results in no or, at best, only minimal benefits.

Evidently, the hardened remains of fossilized proletarian oligarchs in NYC can’t tolerate the mere presence of proletarian democrats even as far away as Texas.

But proletarian democracy, first in the Party and later in the State, is here to stay.

Getting serious about politics
| July 8, 2012 | 9:11 pm | Action | Comments closed

By Zoltan Zigedy

http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2012/07/getting-serious-about-politics.html

Economic relations clarify politics just as politics can return the favor. In truth, it is impossible to fully understand one without an understanding of the other, and especially without a grasp of their inter-relationship. No doubt that explains the wisdom of the classical economists (and Marx and Engels) in describing their studies as “political economy.” Similarly, the failure to systematically integrate the two social domains explains the frustration of the modern-day academic economists, even Nobel laureates, who fume about the politicians standing in the way of their ready solutions to the current global economic crisis.

A case in point is the most prominent economist/pundit in the USA, Paul Krugman. Not to call out Krugman—most others share his frustration with US and European policy-makers—but his prestigious podium in The New York Times certainly makes him a handy target. Both in the recent pages of The New York Review of Books (jointly with his wife) and in his New York Times column, Krugman has turned to the political roadblocks standing in the way of his proffered “recovery.” Until recently, Krugman has simply repeated his prescription for recovery again and again. But now—like the Biblical Paul on the road to Damascus—Krugman has had a blinding flash of recognition. In his case, it’s the maddening recognition of the political dynamics intimately tied to changing economic policy, the backward politics of political factionalism.

Undoubtedly part of Krugman’s (and other liberals like Robert Reich’s) new-found acknowledgment of the political dimension is the fast approaching Presidential and Congressional election in the US. While they are right to see much at stake, they will assuredly be disappointed with the policy options huckstered by the candidates of the two parties.

Economic crises not only clarify, but they expose politics. As we move deeper into a seemingly intractable global economic crisis, the political landscape is revealed to show clearly where the class interests of the various parties and alignments reside.

And what is exposed is neither pretty nor promising. It would be foolish to think that over forty years of building and strengthening a neo-liberal consensus would arm existing political institutions with the means to tackle a crisis of almost unprecedented ferocity. It borders on insanity to believe that a policy toolbox crafted from a long period of stability and smug confidence in capitalism would be adequate at a time when the foundations are collapsing. Yet, that foolishness and insanity is what we have in 2012.

Politics, Pre-Crisis

A long period of relatively crisis-free development in Europe and the US after World War II sapped Left and Communist Parties of their radical and revolutionary fervor. As mass confidence in capitalism’s promise and sustainability grew, anti-capitalists retreated into parliamentarianism and reformism. At the same time, bourgeois parties—the parties of capitalism—drew ideologically closer together, first around a modest Keynesian welfare state and then, after the severing of the post-war social contract and the subsequent fall of Soviet and Eastern European socialism, around the neo-liberal agenda. Politics in Europe and the US evolved into an ever-tightening circle of economic consensus celebrating the supremacy of markets and the meager social justice compatible with capitalist accumulation. Bourgeois parties embraced unfettered capitalism and individual self-reliance, differing only on the pace of privatizing and dismantling former social safeguards. And radical parties, even Communist Parties, “mutated” or dissolved in order to be included in the tightening circle of common ideology. In the US, the two dominant parties competed more and more over the same terrain, limiting differences mainly to life style and cultural matters. In Europe, multi-party parliamentary systems were evolving inexorably into the two-party charade so well established in the US.

To the surprise of many, this happy festival of capitalist triumphalism was rudely interrupted by a global economic crisis of an intensity unseen since the early decades of the last century. Unfortunately, the left is as ill equipped to address this crisis as are its bourgeois opponents.

An Awakening?

After nearly four years of relentless economic instability and severe pain for a growing majority of the citizenry, surely it is time to question the viability of capitalism. With all signs pointing to another severe relapse amplifying the destruction of the 2008-2009 collapse, certainly the idea of a radical departure from capitalist social and economic relations is in order.

But to address the crisis, we must move dramatically away from the thinking that characterized the post-war “golden age” of capitalist development, an era that seduced the US and European left into the comfortable bed of class collaboration and reformism.

Some view the electoral turn in Europe to the “socialists” of Francois Hollande in France or the strong parliamentary showing of the SYRIZA coalition in Greece as a sign of a left rebirth. Many, both in the amorphous, ideologically muddled US left or with the European Green/pale-red parties, place their hopes in this development.

Events will show this to be a false path, a path that invests in attempting to prop up the very system that has rained destruction, poverty, and pain on the vast majority of the world’s population. Certainly Hollande’s election and SYRIZA’s strong showing in Greece mean something. They represent a first attempt, a cautious and tentative attempt, to move away from the rigid discipline of markets and financial fealty. They represent the timid and fearful votes of a broad and self-satisfied middle stratum that, despite its profound injuries from the crisis, still harbor hopes of returning to the pre-crisis era. They express the false promise of a painless process that presumably will rein in predatory capitalism by negotiation and reasonableness. And, tragically, they represent a dead-end road leading to even further devastation of living standards and increased unemployment and poverty.

From the perspective of the ruling classes, the ascendancy of the French socialists and SYRIZA in Greece signals the passing of the baton to new forces with a mandate to manage capitalism (Just as the Obama candidacy signaled a similar passing in 2008).

Their electoral successes point to the recognition that a new direction is both desired and warranted, though one that remains securely in the capitalist camp. In the words of Giorgos Marinos, a leader of the Communist Party of Greece, “… the reformation of the political scene is being promoted which is supported by the bourgeois class, the European Union and other imperialist mechanisms to more effectively manage the capitalist crisis in capital’s favor, to impede the class struggle…” As long as much of the left in both Europe and the US fail to see this, they turn away from any real exit from this profound crisis of the capitalist system.

Both Hollande and his socialists as well as SYRIZA propose to refuse the austerity medicine demanded by central bankers, international lenders, and EU politicians and, instead, focus on economic growth in France and Greece. While this proposal may have resonated with voters, it will never advance beyond a mere campaign slogan. It can’t.

To believe that austerity can simply be willed away is foolish or disingenuous. The austerity imposed in Europe is an economic imperative driven by the weaknesses of the European Union that allow predatory capitalism to exploit the most vulnerable of the Union’s members. Finance capital is the enforcer of this austerity and finance capital must be brought to its knees to escape the austerity. There is nothing in the French Socialist program or the SYRIZA platform that even hints at how this could or should be done.

Austerity has a political dimension, but at its heart it is both an economic mechanism to restore and expand profitability and an expression of the economic dominance of financial markets. To not grasp this point, to not understand that austerity emanates from a source deep in the capitalist system, is to have failed to draw any lessons from the last four years. Only a frontal assault on capitalism, a program to dismantle an economic system that invariably concentrates greater and greater wealth into fewer and fewer hands, answers this challenge.

Already, before the celebration of the Socialist Party’s sweeping victory has even expired, financial predators are focusing on France. Officials are warning of a “debt spiral,” while others in government are nervously reassuring financial markets that France will meet its deficit goals. One financial expert quoted by The New York Times noted: “So far the markets have been kind to France… but…France remains ‘the lucky peripheral.’” Not for long. And the Socialists have no answer.

Escaping the Debt Dilemma

It is no exaggeration to state that effective political responses to the crisis have yet to mature sufficiently in the US and Europe. Conservative and social democratic forces dominate the political landscape, while showing no program to escape the clutches of finance and monopoly capital. This undoubtedly will change as these capitalism-friendly parties fail to turn away the capitalist onslaught.

In Europe, principled revolutionary parties like the Greek Communist Party (KKE) will win more and more Greeks and Europeans to militant anti-capitalism and breathe life to the socialist option. They offer an answer to the debt dilemma.

During the most recent Greek parliamentary elections, the KKE was the target of a scathing attack for refusing to join with SYRIZA in a potential coalition government. “Leftists” in Greece, as well as outside the country, dishonored the party’s independence and trampled on its principles with irresponsible assaults on its position. Greek Communists adamantly refused to cooperate with a government that would both seek to preserve capitalism and fail to safeguard the interests of working people. History will show this stand marks the way forward, despite the electoral losses spawned by fear and confusion.

In the US, dismal two-party politics continues to grind down working people with no respite in sight. Both parties vie for and receive campaign money from the financial sector and the other major monopoly corporations. Both parties will duly reward this generosity.

Once again, as in the run-up to the 2008 election, the financial sector is pouring money into the Obama coffers (at a pace even greater than in the earlier campaign). And despite campaign rhetoric and the predictable liberal fear tactics and apologia, he will, once again, live up to the expectations of his campaign donors. The next five months promise an orgy of media spending on Orwellian images and slogans. No answer to the debt dilemma and the global crisis will come out of this low drama. Ironically, prominent liberal economist, Robert Reich concedes as much in a recent post on his website. Faced with abysmal economic data and the threat of a perceived bad economy to Obama’s re-election prospects, Reich argues that there is little the administration could do to change matters: ironic and pathetic

As in Europe, a peoples’ answer will come with the emergence of an anti-capitalist advocate for socialism, a Communist or Workers Party, a formation that challenges the core of capitalist social and economic relations. Giorgos Marinos of the KKE says it succinctly and well: “There are more than enough forces to manage the system. What the people need are real communist parties that will not manage the capitalist barbarity in the name of the “government left” and in the name of “realistically” accepting the negative correlation of forces. In this way you pave the way for the forces of capital and precious time is wasted, for which the working class and the popular strata will pay a high price.”

Yes, working people are paying a high price and we need to get on with the business of giving the people real Communist Parties.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

Thoughts on Pink Floyd
| July 8, 2012 | 8:51 pm | Action | Comments closed

By James Harrington

Roger Waters, one of the founders of the great British progressive rock group, Pink Floyd is a strong supporter of the Palestinian people.

While listening to his wonderful piece called The Wall the other day, I came up with the following thoughts about so-called Western education.

We don’t need your education…
We don’t need your thought control.

Over and over we’re just another brick in the wall.

The purpose of the primary school system is to make sure that the child is completely brainwashed in the twelve years they spend in public or private schools.

They are taught how great Western Civilization is and how they can join in this complete fraud.

They are Never told how the so-called civilized nations raped, pillared, and plundered the third world nations of the world to steal these countries national resources and subjugate its peoples into their slaves.

Interview with Gus Hall
| July 4, 2012 | 9:53 pm | Action | Comments closed

Here is an interview with Gus Hall, former Chair of the CPUSA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xzIgpmIErI

Soviet Music
| July 4, 2012 | 9:37 pm | Action | Comments closed

Check out this link for some inspiring Soviet Music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAbhCYbNM90