Category: About the CPUSA
USA / Donald Trump government: Priority in serving the general interests of the capital

Monday, January 16, 2017

USA / Donald Trump government: Priority in serving the general interests of the capital

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/01/usa-donald-trump-government-priority-in.html
Article published on ‘Rizospastis’ Sunday Edition, 15 January 2017 / Translation: In Defense of Communism.


The priorities of the government of the newly-elected U.S. President, Donald Trump, who takes office on January 20th, do not differ from those of the outgoing President Barack Obama because- despite the existing differences in their declarations- their common denominator is to safeguard the general interests of the bourgeoisie. That doesn’t negate a multilevel intra-bourgeois confrontation for the way through which this will be achieved more effectively, especially in a period when the inter-imperialist antagonism is exacerbated, with an estimated relative loss of U.S. leadership in the international capitalist economy and given the difficulties for a more impetuous capitalist recovery. More specifically Trump promotes a different mix of management with stronger elements of protectionism, an issue which however creates difficulties in international trade, which in turn displeases other parts of the (U.S) capital. 

Last Wednesday, Donald Trump gave his first press conference after his electoral victory, offering a foretaste of the new tactics and the fronts of a possible collision. In the background, of course, is the peak of the confrontation between the intelligence agencies (inside and outside the U.S), especially after the publication of a controversial 35 pages-long “report” written by the British former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, currently owner of the “stratetic advice company” named Orbis Business Intelligence. The report claimed that the Russian intelligence services keep the new President under control because of intelligence information regarding financial and sexual activities. These informations were denounced by Trump as “vile and fabricated lies”, giving him rise to criticize part of the bourgeois media, such as CNN.
 
In any case, the “war” between secret services isn’t expected to settle down soon, as it reflects intra-bourgeois contrasts. It is characteristic that on Thursday night, the Inspector General of the U.S. federal Justice Department announced an inquiry regarding the decision of the outgoing FBI Director James Comey to re-open, shortly before the election, the investigation about the e-mails of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. 
 
Review of inter-state agreements.
 
Trump also seemed taking a position regarding a possible conflict with competing forces, such as China, thus bringing back to the fore his campaign promises and intentions to renegotiate trade agreements. This is a fact which, of course, will influence international developments and which, obviously, creates concern to staffs and other imperialist centers, combined with the developments such as the bazaar for Britain’s disengagement from the EU (Brexit) and the Eurozone’s cohesion itself. Trump has already warned for the U.S. withdrawal from the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” (TPP), something which inevitably mean new big bazaars and sharpening of the confrontation between competing monopolies that will seek the biggest piece from the “pie” of the new opportunities. It is not clear which power will gain more from a new negotiation, nor it is certain that the U.S. will be that power. Some analysts believe that the possible withdrawal of the U.S. from the TPP will leave an open door to Beijing, in order to push forward for China’s benefit the “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership” (RCEP) which began in 2012. 
 
In his interview, Trump “shook his finger” to China which, as he said, “makes billions of dollars by taking advantage of U.S. weaknesses”. That happened while, a few days ago, he had announced, after his meeting with the 52 years-old Chinese business magnate (owner of the e-commerce firm “Alibaba”) Jack Ma, the latter’s plans to create “one million jobs in the U.S.”. 
 
Respectively, regarding the so-called “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement” (TTIP), Trump has said that he will seek hard renegotiation in defense of the U.S. companies. 
 
In relation to Russia, Trump seems to keep a more conciliatory stance, despite the wild war between intelligence services which has targeted him for this choice. It is characteristic that he described as a “plus” the fact that the Russian President Vladimir Putin “likes” him, because, as he explained, this could contribute to the restoration of the bilateral relations which, as he said, are “terrible” today. One must point out that Trump’s choice to compromise with the Russians is not a matter of preference but an issue of interest, as he may use a possible bridge with Moscow in order to exacerbate the pressure towards Beijing. Nonetheless, during their confirmation hearings at the Senate, the proposed Trump’s ministers, Rex Tillerson for the Department of State and James Mattis for the Department of Defense, marked Russia as a “threat”.

A significant part of the press conference was also dedicated to the need, as Trump pointed out, for the U.S better defense towards cyberattacks, which, for the first time he admitted, have been unleashed “from Russia, China and many other countries”. It is interesting that he appointed the former New York Governor Rudolph Giuliani in the new position of the cybersecurity adviser, responsible for private sector’s cybersecurity. That means a very positive action for the monopolies operating in the field of cybersecurity, such as Giuliani’s company “Giuliani Partners”.

Trump clarified once again that he will immediately proceed to the construction of the wall in the southern borders of the USA with Mexico, despite “the friendship and respect” for the people and the government of the neighboring country. He (Trump) tried to show consistency with his central electoral campaign promises, taking into account his objective to present himself as the “antisystemic president” who wants to “make America great again” and to create in the long term a “movement” which will resonate in the middle and lower social strata. 

Promises for better healthcare and employment.


As it has been seen, it is in the immediate priorities of Trump to withdraw and replace the reforms promoted by the outgoing President Barack Obama (Obamacare), in order to benefit specific monopolies of pharmaceutical groups and parts of the diagnostic medical centers’ “industry”. 

Trump claims that he will replace Obamacare with a “cheaper and better” system. Chances are that he will attempt to redistribute the “pie” in favor of the monopolies operating in the sectors of Health and Insurance.

Furthermore, Donald Trump repeated his promises for the “rescue” and the creation of new jobs, thus “throwing down the gauntlet” to those industries which didn’t correspond strongly to his efforts to prevent the transfer of factories abroad, such as in Mexico. He managed to highlight his recent agreements with industries, such as the automobile company “Ford” and the air-conditioning manufacturer “Carrier” that withdrew their plans for transfering their factories in Mexico and he threatened with very heavy imposts or “border taxes” those industries which will resist the pressures for keeping job positions in the US, such as the automotive “General Motors” corporation which doesn’t seem to “give in”.

It becomes obvious that the choice of Trump, like the one of Obama previously as the first black President, serves the specific needs of the capital in every given time. However, the billionaire businessman has managed more effectively to manipulate the popular strata which had no benefit from the slight capitalist recovery after the outbreak of the 2008 capitalist crisis. The fact of the absence of a strong Communist Party with a revolutionary strategy and a class-based orientation undoubtedly contriubutes to the overal entrapment of popular forces. 

Rizospastis, 15/1/2017, p.30.

CPUSA member renounces CPUSA leadership
| December 29, 2016 | 7:50 pm | About the CPUSA, Party Voices | No comments

In response to the article we posted “Elena Mora resigns from the CPUSA,” we received this comment:

“Good riddance to liberals. There will always be differences in any party and that is healthy ,but when one ceases to be a Marxist then they belong in a different political party. The CPUSA has grown alot in the last year. Our club now numbers 113 members,some are union members,some work in election campaigns,some in the environmental field,some in anti racist,anti sexist,and some in anti imperialist work. We sponsor 2 meetups and 2 websites. We sponsor a Socialist reading group every 2 weeks and a progressive movie night once a month. We built this club by carrying on a struggle against both left sectarianism and right wing revisionism. Anyone is welcome to come to our club meetings or other activities and see for themselves.”

We don’t understand what it means. Bourgeois liberals are hard to read. Splitting is usually the underlying motive.

TRUMP AND EVIL
By A. Shaw
Our question is: Is Donald Trump evil?
We may borrow from the writings of Aristotle and Kant their definition of evil.
According to the two writers mentioned above, evil is a state in which a being (either human or divine):
(1) Sees the difference between good and evil and this being CHOOSES the evil principle over the good principle,
(2) This being ACTS in accordance with the evil principle it chooses, and
(3) This being FEELS pleasure when it acts in accordance with the evil principle it chooses.
So, our question, formulated-above, assumes a new form:
Does Trump choose the evil principle over good and does he act accordingly? Further, does Trump enjoy these acts?
If the answer to all three of these questions is YES, then, according Aristotle and Kant, Trump is evil.
In respect to the first of the three questions, Trump sees the difference between good and evil with astonishing clarity. He vividly describes this difference in his speeches. He repeatedly CHOOSES the evil principle over good, especially evil that  involves some  kind of excess.
With respect to the second question,Trump promises to ACT in accordance with his choice of evil if he wins. Since political campaigning in itself is an ACT, we find that Trump acts in accordance with his evil choice of principle.
Does Trump ENJOY the pursuit of the evil principle which he chooses?
Trump enjoys evil, exceedingly.
He’s so jolly when he pursues evil that he often blunders and says things he didn’t intend to disclose, causing anguish for his campaign  for president.
So, let’s return to  our original question:  Is Trump evil?
The answer is “absolutely.”
Trump is evil because he deliberately and joyfully pursues evil.
According to Aristotle, there are five states — evil, brutish, weak, strong, and good.
Some of Trump’s opponents and supporters argue adamantly that Trump isn’t evil, because he is brutish.
According to Aristotle, brutes and evil beings both do evil acts and both claim that evil acts feel good to them. But there is a fundamental difference between brutes and evil beings because brutes cannot see the difference between good and evil. Therefore it is impossible for a brute to choose evil or good. On the other hand, evil clearly sees the difference between itself and good. Hence, Trump isn’t a brute, he’s evil.
Some others argue Trump isn’t evil because he’s only weak.
Unlike both brutes and evil beings, the weak chooses the good principle over evil, but the weak are not strong enough to ACT in accordance with their choice. Trump is a person of prodigious willpower, so he acts in accordance with his choices.
Hence, Trump isn’t weak.
Still others argue Trump isn’t evil, but he’s strong.
The strong choose good over evil and act in accordance with their choice. But they don’t enjoy their choice. They hate their choice and long to do evil acts because they imagine that evil acts are fun. Trump neither chooses good nor does good acts. Hence, Trump isn’t strong but he’s evil.
Still others say Trump is evil because he’s good.
The good chooses good as their principle of action, acts according to their principle, and enjoys it.
Trump hasn’t one thing in common with the good.
 Trump is evil.
CONCLUSION
Evil is corruption.
Power corrupts.
When they — Trump and the White House — unite,
Great sorrow.
US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade

Friday, October 14, 2016

US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade

 https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/10/us-trotskyism-behind-socialist.html
Behind the Socialist Masquerade.
By Zoltan Zigedy / Source: Marxism-Leninism Today.
 
Ashley Smith recently wrote an essay (Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution) ostensibly about Syria and imperialism but more properly understood as a rekindling and re-statement of anti-Communist “leftism.”

Smith, an ideologue of the International Socialist Organization, unveils his true target when he inveighs against the “Stalinists”: “Stalinist groups like the Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Freedom Road Socialist Organization…”
Not content with these examples, Smith, in McCarthy-like fashion, feels the necessity to name further names. He sees the UK’s Stop the War coalition as also duped by the Stalinists, along with the US United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). Jill Stein of the Green Party and her Vice Presidential partner, Ajamu Baraka, are similarly infected with the “Stalinist” virus.
Laughably, he ominously links the recent bold, fact-finding mission to Syria organized by the US Peace Council to the “American Communist Party,” an association meant to conjure up the specter of Stalin; but it is an untenable association with a moribund CPUSA that has long distanced itself from “Stalinism” and the Soviet legacy with a fervor equal to the US Trotskyist groups.
Without re-visiting the old ideological wars (Trotsky has been dead for 76 years, Stalin for 63 years, and the Soviet Union for 25 years), it is nonetheless useful to point out a common characteristic shared by US Trotskyist organizations: they invariable live and breathe anti-Communism. Since the Cold War began, they traded on their distance from the “enemies” of Western Imperialism. The grip that these groups often had on middle class youth was predicated on the denial of Red connections.
For a university student, the McCarthyite stigma of Communism could be evaded by joining an anti-Communist organization that proclaimed that its anti-Communism was even more radical than Communism!US Trotskyism is part of the “Yes, but…” left. Yes, Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, etc. etc. are bad, but we’re not like that! Like you, we’re against them, too! We’re the unthreatening, friendly advocates for change…
In the Cold War period and after, this was a safe tactic to appear radical without poking the bear of repression. Of course it didn’t always fool those entrusted with thwarting even the most lame rejection of capitalism. Communists victimized by Cold War repression often joked that a US socialist was someone without the guts to be a Communist. The easy assimilation of much of the Trotskyist intellectual apparatus into the anti-Communist hierarchy and the subsequent entry of many into ruling circles certainly underscores the opportunism of this tactic.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, US Trotskyism has been in crisis. With the departure of a foil of sheer evil, the appeal of anti-Communist radicalism has lost its punch. Apart from the intellectual Neanderthals serving Eastern European reaction (sponsored by the New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, and a few other inveterate anti-Communist organs), the epithet “Stalinist!” means little in current discourse.
Ashley Smith hopes to revive its relevance for the twenty-first century. He sets out to buttress Trotskyism as a thin and tortured alternative to the anti-imperialism of the “Stalinists.” As with his Cold War predecessors, Smith hopes to trade on distancing Trotskyism from the rivals or antagonists of US and European Imperialism. In the absence of a Soviet Union, capitalist Russia will suffice as the source of evil.
And Syria’s Assad will play the role of the bloodthirsty despot– a mini-Stalin– in this Trotskyist fantasy. Smith offers an unvarnished choice: “Which side are you on? Do you support the popular struggle against dictatorship and for democracy? Or are you with Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, his imperial backer Russia, his regional ally Iran and Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah from Lebanon?”
It is breathtaking how simplistically, but presumptuously Smith characterizes the Syrian tragedy. It is equally astonishing to recognize how wrong he gets it. To be so blind to sources of information apart from Western reporters in Beirut, Amman, and Ankara, to rely principally upon a London-based, unfiltered, and non-independent anecdote collector like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and to credit US and European sponsored “revolutionaries” implies an indifference to the pursuit of truth.
Whatever grievances Syrians may have had against Assad, it is hardly credible to hail an armed struggle that began literally weeks after the alleged peaceful demonstrations that Smith praises. No insurrection has ever proceeded so swiftly and effectively against security services and a modern army without outside assistance. We now know from revelations exposed by the US media’s fixation on the Benghazi fiasco that the CIA was vigorously engaged in shipping weaponry to Syria from stockpiles snatched from its Libyan venture. We know that regimes on the Arabian Peninsula were equally vigorous in supplying military equipment and recruiting volunteers.
Even US and Western European sources concede that the most numerous and most effective anti-Assad fighters are not democrats or reformists, but radical fundamentalists driven by religious fervor and feudal ideology, hardly the idealistic revolutionaries portrayed by Smith. In fact, US and European advisors complain of the difficulties of vetting anti-Assad forces sufficiently credible to receive advanced weapons. The few recipients of US supplied anti-tank missiles have displayed a troubling propensity to pass them on to the worst of the worse jihadist.
Smith shows an enormous conceit, from his secure perch, joining Western politicians in intuiting the sentiment of the Syrian people. Cavalierly dismissing the Syrian elections, he– along with the Western media– somehow divines that most Syrians hate Assad and that the opposition overflows with democratic, progressive sentiment. Where we have evidence of an independent vote– for example, the May, 2014 national election vote of Syrian refugees in Lebanon– the Washington Post’s rabid anti-Assad reporter, Liz Sly, conceded that uncoerced refugees supported Assad.
One has to notice that, unlike previous chapters of the so-called “Arab Spring,” there are no embedded Western reporters recording the march of democracy or the defeat of tyranny. Cannot CNN find any democrats in the Syrian opposition? Are there no freedom-loving fighters for NBC reporters to interview?Of course the Assad regime’s invitation to allow Western reporters goes cynically unaccepted. To find on-the-spot reporting from Syrian battle zones, one has to turn to Lizzie Phelan, an independent UK journalist whose frequent front line footage appears most often on RT (her recent 20-minute cab ride through Aleppo gives a decidedly different picture of the city from that rendered by Western media reporting a Syrian “Stalingrad” from afar).
Smith does not hesitate to embrace the Libyan debacle as a pro-democracy revolution as well. One would think that the disastrous destabilization of Libya would serve as a sobering tonic for Smith’s fantasies. As with Syria, the pro-democracy revolutionaries were largely a figment of the imagination of US and European politicians and journalists, a group that our erstwhile “socialist” seems happy to join. But that is not just my opinion or the opinion of other “Stalinists.” On Wednesday, September 14, the UK parliament’s cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee released a report on the UK’s 2011 intervention in Libya. According to The Wall Street Journal, the committee found that the engagement was “based on ‘serious erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding’… [and] failed to identify that the rebels included a significant Islamist element and that the [Gadhafi] threat to civilians was overstated.” (my italics) It is striking that the UK government can shed its illusions, but Ashley Smith clings to his.
It is no accident that Ashley Smith’s long essay makes only a passing mention of workers or class. Like most US Trotskyist organizations, ISO draws support significantly from the petty-bourgeoisie. Thus, the question of workers and their fate never arises in his argument. There is no notice taken of the Syrian General Federation of Trade Unions, a supporter of Assad, an opponent of class collaboration, a leader in Arab trade unionism, and a pillar of the class struggle trade unionism of the World Federation of Trade Unions. There is no attention to either the opinions of workers or the effect of a violent insurrection upon the working class. These issues are of little count for one who calls for all to “collaborate with Syrian revolutionaries” who exist only in the minds of political romantics.
Rather than concern himself with the fate of Syria’s working class, Smith prefers to repeat the US and European media’s obsession with civilian-targeted barrel bombs and poison gasses, claims that have defied objective verification. But he exceeds Western fear-mongering by attributing the entire UN estimate of 400,000 deaths in the war to “Assad’s massacre.” Recently, a delegation organized by the US Peace Council visited Syria and met with a number of Syrians, their organizations, and even oppositionists. They left the US with the notion that Syrians should decide the fate of Syria. They returned with the same notion, but even more strongly felt.
But, in addition, they returned with the view that events in Syria are far more complicated than the simplistic picture presented by the US State Department. They returned with the idea that peace in Syria would not be secured through the intervention of foreign powers or by supporting media-manufactured fantasies. Unfortunately, many on the left like Ashley Smith and some in the more conservative peace groups do not want to hear the Peace Council report, preferring to embrace the self-serving constructions of the regime-changers.
Sam Webb, where are you?
| October 6, 2016 | 8:00 pm | About the CPUSA, political struggle | 2 Comments

By James Thompson

Rumors have been flying for months now that Sam Webb has resigned his membership in the CPUSA. There has been no public announcement to this effect.

Party members, expelled party members, as well as socialists and communists around the world deserve to know the truth. Why not put these rumors to rest and make a public statement that former Chairman Webb has continued his membership in the CPUSA or has resigned?

In either case, there are questions to be answered. If he is still a member of the CPUSA, it would be important for him to explain why he is still a member when he has fought so hard to make his primary political affiliation the bourgeois Democratic Party. If he resigned from the CPUSA, it would be important for him to explain why he felt it was necessary to take this action.

Sam Webb, we’re all still asking with a loud voice “Which side are you on?”

PHill1917@comcast.net

 

“Clinton makes History”: CPUSA’s opportunist transformation

Thursday, June 9, 2016

“Clinton makes History”: CPUSA’s opportunist transformation

 http://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/06/clinton-makes-history-cpusas.html
COMMENTARY
 
The transformation of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) into an opportunist political organisation has been a long process. Since 1988, the CPUSA endorses the candidates of the bourgeois Democratic Party: Dukakis (1988), Clinton (1992, 1996), Gore (2000), Kerry (2004), Obama (2008, 2012). In an article published yesterday on ‘People’s World’, the presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton is presented as “a major milestone in the fight for women’s rights”. Once again, CPUSA endorses a political representative of the U.S. monopoly capital and a war criminal. What a shame really for a party with such a long, significant history and close ties with the U.S labour movement.
 
Hillary Clinton, like Donald Trump, is a choice of the U.S. monopoly capital, of the country’s bourgeois class, for the position of the President. Mrs.Clinton’s service as Obama government’s Foreign Secretary is known and has been proved disastrous: Libya, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Syria, Yemen. The people of these countries know, better than anyone, what Imperialism means and what was Clinton’s contribution in war crimes. 
However, we aren’t surprised by the choice of CPUSA to become a ‘left’ wing of the bourgeois Democratic Party. Despite it’s self-identification as a party devoted to the principles of Marxism-Leninism (CPUSA Program, 19 May 2006), the CPUSA has actually abandoned scientific socialism, thus being transformed into a social-democratic political organisation. What kind of ‘communist’ would endorse Obama or Clinton? What kind of ‘marxist-leninist’ would accept to participate in a game of choice between Scylla (Democrats) and Charybdis (Republicans)? Does it make any fundamental difference for the U.S. working class if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become President of the country?
 
The CPUSA leadership’s policy fosters illusions and disorientate the U.S. working class from the real aim which must be the struggle for Socialism. Furthermore, the entrapment of the U.S. working class in a choice between “Democrats and Republicans” or “Clinton and Sanders”, consist a clear betrayal of the Marxist-Leninist principles and an opportunistic demagogy which works in favor of the bourgeois establishment. 
 
We strongly denounce the CPUSA endorsement of Hillary Clinton and call the working class, the low-income people of the United States to avoid being trapped in the bipolarism of “Democrats vs Republicans”. The only choice of the U.S. labour movement is to reject opportunism and move towards the revival of the Marxist-Leninist ideals, for a society without exploitation, for the final victory of the American people over capitalist barbarity.
 
In Defense of Communism, 9 June 2016.
THE POSITION OF KKE ON THE WEBB’S PLATFORM AND THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CPUSA.
Rizospastis, 17 April 2011 / inter.kke.gr.
Athens, 13 April 2011.
To the members and cadre of the CPUSA,
To the workers that struggle in the USA
To the communist and workers parties
Dear comrades,
In February 2011 the chairperson of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, published an article in Political Affairs, the electronic publication of the CPUSA, entitled “A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It Does”. Even if the specific article is accompanied by an editorial note which claims that “The following article represents the views of its author alone. It doesn’t necessarily reflect the official views of any organization or collective.”, it is obvious to us that the public position of the head of a Communist Party concerning such an important issue requires special attention.
On 16th February we received a letter from the editorial team of Political Affairs which invited us to send in our opinion.
Our party, after studying this article and the reactions it has provoked within the ranks of communists both in the USA and internationally, considers it necessary to take a public position through this letter, as is required by its responsibility as a part of the international communist movement.
Our assessment is that we are dealing with a comprehensive liquidationist platform of 29 theses which has been placed before the international communist movement and proposes the total revision of the principles and revolutionary traditions of the communist movement.
The KKE, as a section of the international communist movement, considers as its duty the refutation of this platform, which questions the need for the existence of a party of the working class in the USA, and in general is directed against the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement internationally. The 18th Congress of our party stressed that “the battle against social-democratisation tendencies in Communist Parties – through the intervention of imperialist mechanisms, anti-communism and the bourgeois media – must be fought firmly and consistently by defending the historic role of the working class and its organised vanguard, the principles of Marxism-Leninism and of socialism. This task takes on even greater significance in face of the growing anti-communist offensive in the EU and internationally.”
Dear comrades,
The platform that has been presented today, through the article of the chairperson of the CPUSA, constitutes the culmination of a course of “adjustment” in the last decade as the author himself points out. There have already been developments in this intervening period which communists in Greece, as well as in the USA and other countries have followed with concern, such as:
• The handing over of the Party’s archives to the imperialists, the bourgeois state of the USA in 2007.
• The closure of the print publication of the newspaper (People’s Weekly World) and the journal Political Affairs, with the simultaneous alteration of its character.
• The organizational shrinkage and dislocation of the party.
• The political “tailing”, behind one of the two pillars of the bourgeois political system of the USA, that is to say behind the Democratic Party.
• The stance in relation to the ambitions of US imperialism ( e.g. rejection of the demand for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq)
• The blocking of the Joint Statement of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in Damascus, because in the final text there was the position for the withdrawal of the imperialist occupation forces from Iraq.
These elements intensified after the 29th Congress of the CPUSA. It was not by chance that immediately after the congress, an article was published in Political Affairs which called into question not only the need to maintain the name of the party, but the possibility and even the necessity of a Communist Party’s existence in the USA today.
Today the Webb platform comes as the culmination of this course and openly propagandises the abandonment of the Marxist-Leninist worldview, the abolition of democratic centralism, and the undermining of the principles of the party of a new type.
We would like to draw your attention to the following basic aspects of this platform:
ON THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF THE PARTY:
It proposes the replacement of our theory by an eclectic hotchpotch which does not go beyond the limits of liberal bourgeois ideology. It attacks Marxism-Leninism directly, which constitutes one of the central laws of the existence and activity of the party of the new type, as V.I.Lenin pointed out: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement… the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” In this specific platform various extremely old opportunist positions are promoted as new (e.g. Marxism-Leninism is foreign, anti-democratic, it is a distortion of Marxism by Stalin etc.), these are positions which disarm the labour movement and surrender it, without theoretical tools, to the claws of the exploitative system.
ON THE QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY:
It promotes the view that there can be solutions in favour of the working class within the framework of capitalism. In this way, it promotes as an alternative solution the line of the so-called “green” capitalist restructurings. In addition, the Webbplatform considers the characterisation of the crisis as a capitalist crisis of overproduction insufficient. It distorts the essence of the over-accumulation of capital as it associates it with…. A lack of investment opportunities. It states characteristically: “Short of a new New Green Deal on a global level, it is hard to see where the dynamism for a sustained upswing, let alone a long boom, is going to come from.”
These views “recycle” social-democratic and opportunist theories on economic recession and development which whitewash capitalism and conceal its class essence, leading the Communist Party to give up on its strategic goal and support political proposals, which have as their goal the acquisition of new super-profits by the capitalists, in the name of “ecology”, at the same time when they are turning nature and natural wealth into commodities, and destroying the planet in various ways.
THE QUESTION OF THE SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE:
It renounces the struggle for socialism. The notion of revolution is entirely absent. It proposes an endless process of successive stages, in which the alliances will be formed not on the basis of the character of the era and the class interests of the working class. Webb proposes working for “- the balance of forces is to shift in a progressive direction”. This view condemns the party to submit itself to the temporary circumstances and not to work with a strategy for the overthrow of capitalism through the concentration of forces.
Nevertheless, it is obvious to us, that the tactics of a Communist Party must serve its strategy, which is the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a socialist-communist society. The position of Webb in practice abolishes the strategic goal of the Communist Party, and finally aims to shake the very character of the Communist Party. Socialism is in any case on the agenda, since we live in the era of imperialism, the highest and final stage of capitalism. The timeliness and necessity of socialism-communism is projected by the impasses of capitalism, the imperialist wars, the economic crises, the huge social, economic, environmental, ecological and other problems which capitalist society breeds. A Communist Party must form tactics and alliances which facilitate the concentration of forces, the class unity of the working class and the social alliance with the popular strata, with the aim of maturing the subjective factor for the acquisition of power by the working class, and not to be trapped in alliances and stages, which will lead it to struggle under a “foreign flag” in the logic of managing capitalism.
ON THE QUESTION OF THE FORMATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
The Webb platform proposes moving beyond the Communist Parties. It says that “A party of socialism in the 21st century embraces Marxism, understood as a broad theoretical tradition that reaches beyond the communist movement.” “A party that does not struggle for the interests of the working class but “fights for the interests of the entire nation.”
This position denies the necessity of the existence of the Communist Party in the USA and indeed in the entire world. The KKE successfully dealt with similar views, when they emerged in our party 20 years ago under the influence of “Gorbachevist” theories. The communists of Greece fought hard to repel these opportunist views, for the preservation of the KKE, for the preservation and strengthening of its revolutionary, class and internationalist character. Today, 20 years later, the communists not only in Greece but all over the world can judge the positive results that the outcome of this battle had for the KKE. The KKE was able to stand on its feet, to elaborate serious theoretical and political issues, without deviating from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It approved its new programme and came to important conclusions concerning the causes of the overthrow of socialism, enriching its perception of socialism. It has taken significant initiatives for the unity of the communist movement at a regional and international level. It strengthened its bonds with the working class and the other popular strata. The influence of its positions and its reputation has been strengthened as it plays the leading role in the regrouping and development of the class-oriented labour-trade union movement and in the tough strike mobilizations of the workers in our country.
None of the above would have been achieved, if opportunism had prevailed 20 years ago in the KKE. The KKE would have gone down the road of dissolution and the labour-popular movement would have lost its basic pillar of support.
ON IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE :
The Webb platform renounces the struggle against bourgeois ideology and opportunism. The party which Webb describes surrenders from the ideological struggle. He writes “A party of socialism in the 21st century doesn’t turn – liberals, advocates of identity politics, single issue movements, centrist and progressive leaders of major social organizations, social democrats, community based non-profits, NGOs, unreliable allies, and the “people” (according to some, a classless category concealing class, racial, and gender oppression) – into enemies.”
But can a Communist Party enlighten the working class, the other popular strata, if it does not have an ideological front against views which present capitalism as the only way, which simply promote different types of management of the exploitative system? The answer of the KKE to this is that it is impossible for the struggle of the people to develop without a firm and consistent ideological front against unscientific bourgeois and opportunist theories. This is especially true in today’s conditions, when the role of the various NGOs has become obvious, which are connected financially and in other ways with the imperialist organizations. In conditions when social-democracy has been in government and has demonstrated in practice that is a pillar of support for the bourgeois political system. In these conditions the communists not only must not give up on ideological work and struggle, but they must intensify the struggle even further against these forces.
ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNISM
Webb rejects the Leninist organization, the organization of the vanguard of the working class which corresponds to the needs of the class struggle for the abolition of exploitation. He rejects the Leninist organization because he rejects the struggle for socialism and has taken sides with the bourgeois class for the perpetuation of capitalism.
So, a state machine which is both experienced and powerful will be opposed by a “party”, according to him, based on the Internet, with an open door policy for new members as an organizational principle: “Joining should be no more difficult than joining other social organizations”.
Thus we can see that not only does he reject the tried and tested organizational principles of the Communist Party of a new type, which were established in the era of Lenin, but he promotes the idea of a party of an NGO type, which corresponds to the content which he himself proposes and is in the direction of a “Communist Party” assimilated into the bourgeois system, which will work for the salvation and “correction” of capitalism and not for its overthrow.
A PARTY OF REVOLUTION OR REFORM?
Reform is the answer given by Webb to this fundamental question, which was posed a hundred years ago. His view denies that the party is the vanguard of the working class and subordinates its activity to the lowest level of class consciousness (“A party of socialism in the 21st century takes as its point of departure the issues that masses (relative term) are ready to fight for”). Of course a reformist line is proposed as well as the prioritization of the intervention in the institutionsof the bourgeois state. The struggle for reforms within imperialism is acclaimed not only as a “means” buts an end for this “new” party.
In reality, when has the path of reforming the capitalist system ever led to the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the vindication of the workers’ desires? The “recipe” of reforms has been tested by the peoples through various social-democratic and centre-left governments, which in practice have been proved to be the main vehicles for the imposition of anti-people and anti-worker measures, and as pillars of support for the imperialist organizations and wars.
“MARXISM”…WITHOUT MARX
Webb calls the class nature of bourgeois democracy into question. As he writes: “what I’m challenging is the notion that everything is subordinate to class and class struggle no matter what the circumstances.” He questions the class nature of the bourgeois state, that is to say the dictatorship of the US monopolies and claims that “thus the nature of the struggle isn’t simply the people against the state, but the people winning positions and influence in the state and then utilizing them to make changes (within and outside of the state)”.
This is an old opportunist position which Marx had already rejected in his era, and was revived by the bankrupt eurocommunist current. And this alone would be enough for us to come to the conclusion that the “Marxism”, which is mentioned as being the theoretical basis of the “party of the 21st century”, has nothing to do with Marx but aims at its vulgar distortion, the burying of revolutionary theory, and the deception of the workers.
ILLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE MONOPOLIES:
The Webb platform fosters illusions and works for the submission of the people to the government of the USA, that is to say the world’s leading imperialist power: “The point isn’t for the U.S. government to simply to crawl into a national shell, but to reinsert itself into world affairs on the basis of cooperation, peace, equality, and mutual benefits…”
At the same time he fosters illusions concerning a “humanized” version of the monopolies: “big sections of the transnational corporate class have pulled the plug on the American people, economy, and state…the commitment of major sections of the transnational elite to a people-friendly public sector, a vibrant domestic economy and a modern society has waned…”
As the Chairperson of the CPUSA has given up on a class approach to society, the abovementioned positions are to be expected. These are positions which not only have nothing to do with the history and struggles of the party he represents, but they bear no relation to reality either. The continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the new imperialist war in Libya demonstrate what kind of activity the US government has developed outside its “national shell”. And it conducts similar anti-people activity for the defence of the interests of the monopolies inside its own country.
ESCALATION OF THE LINE OF “TAILING” CAPITAL AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
The strengthening of political reaction which is intrinsic to imperialism and is intensifying in the conditions of crisis is interpreted as “ultra-right extremism”. This leads to conclusions which violate the truth and reality, such as “the election victory in 2008 cracked opened the door for another “burst of freedom””, “we say too definitively that the independent forces stand no chance whatsoever of taking over the Democratic Party. That still may be the case, but it is a mistake to rule it out completely at this point.” The equation of the working class and its movement with the trade union bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO is consistent with the political line of alliance with sections of capital.
TURN TO ANTICOMMUNISM:
Webb’s article marks an overt siding with the class enemy and a complete alignment with contemporary state-level anticommunism. It calls for “an unequivocal break with Stalin” and lines up with the slanderous assault on socialist construction which offered so much to the Soviet peoples and played the decisive role in the anti-fascist victory of the peoples. In essence, these positions attempt to conceal the reality, the complex problems of the class struggle in the USSR and the tough confrontation of working class power with the bourgeois class in the countryside, the kulaks.
It adopts, in essence, every kind of slanderous simplification of complex problems, such as the sharpening of the class struggle in the USSR. The article goes a step further and joins up with Havel, Walesa and all the reactionary anticommunists of the EU who talk of “crimes against humanity”. It lines up with the tendency that attempts to criminalise the Communist Parties and the defence of socialism: “τo describe these atrocities as a mistake is a mistake – criminal”.
As is well known the opportunist current in Europe that forms the so called Party of the European Left (ELP) holds a similar anti-historical position.
Dear comrades of the CPUSA,
Members, friends and cadre of the CPUSA,
Conscious Workers of the US,
At this very critical moment for your party the KKE calls on you to take into account that the ideological attack against the Party of a New Type focusing on its identity, its character and its organisational principles was unleashed from the very first moment of its existence. The revisionists have always supported the dissolution of the party of the working class; they have always been a pillar of support for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class and its supporters understood from the very first moment the role of the party in the political emancipation of the working class and its movement. The ideological attack which was unleashed continues up to the present day as is demonstrated by Webb’s article.
We call on you to take into account the fact that the party can only fulfil the role of the proletarian vanguard on the condition that it is equipped with unity of will, unity of action, and unity of strict discipline; wages a ceaseless struggle against opportunism and bourgeois ideology; Its internationalist character stems from its nature; it constitutes an integral part of the world communist movement.
Experience confirms and practice which is the yardstick of truth proves that the revolutionary line of struggle not only does not restrict mass work but it reinforces it. It strengthens the expectations of the working people, it provides a way-out and a perspective, it contributes to the change of the correlation of forces. The independent action of the party is a prerequisite for the formation of a policy of alliances that will be subordinated to and serve the strategy for the overthrow of capitalism.
In addition, we consider it necessary to take into account that the necessity of the socialist revolution and the construction of the new communist socio-economic formation is not determined by the correlation of forces, which is shaped at the various historical junctures, but by the historical need to resolve the basic contradiction between capital and labour. The counterrevolutions in the USSR and the other socialist countries have not altered the character of our era which is an era of transition from capitalism to socialism which is timely and necessary as shown by the tragedy of the millions of workers and unemployed who suffer from exploitation and the intensification of the problems that the exploitative system causes.
We believe that the replacement of the principles of Marxism Leninism by revisionist approaches in the name of national peculiarities caused a great deal of damage to the communist movement and continues to do so. No national peculiarity can negate the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, the necessity for the conquest of political power by the working class, for the socialisation of production and central planning. The economic crisis that broke out in the capitalist world and the intensification of the inter-imperialist contradictions further highlight the timeliness of socialism. Under these conditions the driving back of the new wave of state anticommunism, the defence of the socialism we knew, of its great contribution to the world working class, of the identity and the revolutionary traditions of the communist movement acquire a special importance.
Dear comrades,
Historical experience, the developments themselves have refuted the views that spoke of “the end of history”, the “obsolescence of Marxism-Leninism” and the “end of the Communist Parties”. On the contrary, today there is a stronger need for the existence of Communist Parties that have roots in the working class and the workplaces, which believe in Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The labour movement must consciously act and rise to the challenge to ensure the existence of a revolutionary party of the working class. This is a crucial duty and a challenge for the most advanced workers and for communists in all the countries of the world and of course above all in the USA.
The consistent confrontation with and rejection of this opportunist-liquidationist platform is a requirement which springs from the historical traditions the labour and communist movement in the USA, it is a condition for the revival of revolutionary communist ideals in the US labour movement and society.
The International Relations Section of the CC of KKE.
New York Fire Department Confirms 26 Injured in Massive Explosion in Manhattan
| September 17, 2016 | 10:13 pm | About the CPUSA | 1 Comment
04:10 18.09.2016(updated 05:52 18.09.2016)
Get short URL913193121

Reports of an explosion in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan came through social media just before 8:30pm. The explosion has been confirmed by the New York Fire Department. Some 25 people have been injured, according to the New York Fire Department. On Saturday, a massive explosion rattled the Chelsea area of Manhattan. People reported hearing the large blast on social media with the New York Fire Department subsequently confirming that an explosion had occurred. New York City issued an emergency alert telling people to expect traffic delays in the area. At least 25 people have gotten light injuries, according to the New York Fire Department. At least three people were hospitalized. Multiple injuries reported, according to local Pix11 news, from the massive blast that occurred at 135 23rd St. in downtown Manhattan between 6th and 7th avenue. The explosion comes after a pipe bomb was planted near the starting line of a marathon in nearby New Jersey. People have been advised to stay away from the area. The blast has not impacted the city’s subway and train system at this time. Fox 15 news reports that at least 25 people were injured in the blast but the severity of their injuries remain unknown at the present moment. It also is unknown whether the explosion was caused by an act of terror or some natural cause. One social media user under the handle @Shield1631 claims to have uncovered an IED explosive device that was placed in a garbage can in a manner similar to the explosion that occurred at the New Jersey marathon earlier on Saturday. The identification of the device as the cause of the explosion has not been confirmed by authorities, however. The New York Fire Department’s bomb squad has arrived on the scene to inspect the damage and determine whether there remains any not yet exploded devices in the vicinity according to local reports.​​ The Daily Mail reports that it is believed that the structure at 135 23rd St. may have collapsed following the major explosion with reports on social media that the blast shook the entire neighborhood. The NYPD Counterterrorism Unit has been dispatched to the scene with eyewitness reports that police are conducting searches in the vicinity of the explosion, checking for additional explosive devices in the area. So far it is known that the blast was caused by an improvised explosive device placed in a dumpster — similar to the explosion Saturday morning at a marathon in New Jersey — and that at least 25 people have been injured by the explosion. The FBI, ATF, and bomb squad are on the scene. The New York Police Department’s Counterterrorism Chief James Waters acknowledges that the unit is responding to the explosion in Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan and that more details are to follow. The video below shows what is believed to be the garbage can that the explosive device was placed into near the scene of the explosion being looked at by New York City fire fighters. Law enforcement authorities are considering that the explosion could be accidently caused by construction explosives, an unnamed official close to the investigation said. The White House spokesperson said that President Barack Obama has been informed about the explosion, adding that the cause of the incident is still under investigation.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/news/20160918/1045422950/manhattan-explosion-bomb-blast-terror.html