Category: Party Voices
LGBT of the Party of Communists
| June 29, 2015 | 8:53 pm | LGBT, Party of Communists USA, Party Voices | 1 Comment

——–LGBT of the Party of Communists—-Gay Pride Parade Jun 28 2015


Communists have always fought for social and economic equality; battling against racism, sexism, disability and LGBT bias. In fact, the Soviet Union was the first country to decriminalize “homosexuality” in 1917 and many important LGBT people held important positions of power in the USSR. In the United States, LGBT rights were important to the communist party and many comrades like HARRY HAY who created the Madison School were involved in the fight, even during the repressive 1950’s. East Germany was the first country to legalize birth control, abortion, sexual education, and even advocate LGBT rights as one form of sexuality equal to others during the early 1960’s.


Like racism and sexism; LGBT bias is caused by Capitalism’s need to create scapegoats and pit one set of workers against others to prevent solidarity. Just like racism did not exist for example during the Roman period or the Middle Ages, LGBT bias is a modern creation of Capitalism. Sigmund Freud, for example, when he declared that all men and women were bisexual was not postulating a new theory, but one that had been accepted. LGBT bias and the use of terms like “homosexual” were modern 20th century creations; gaining momentum specifically in the 1920’s with the rise of Fascism. Like Jews, LGBT people were also scapegoated whether in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Capitalist America.


One may argue that after the historic Supreme Court decision allowing same sex partners to marry in the US, why is there still a need for LGBT to support communism or join the communist party? Because “Same sex” marriage is not enough. In 29 states for example, it’s still legal to fire someone for being LGBT. Moreover 40% of LGBT youth are homeless. In addition, attacks against the LGBT community will continue as long as Capitalism needs scapegoats to detract attention from economic ills. In fact, the Supreme Court just happened to pass the “Gay” Marriage Act, as Congress passed the TPP. The TPP is a brutal free trade act that undermines all worker and community rights. Under the TPP, states and countries will no longer be able to set or enforce pollution controls or even a minimum wage if it interferes with corporate profits. We need real progressive change. An End to All Discrimination!! Not smokescreens.



  • Everyone should be entitled to healthcare benefits, not just married couples.
  • Increase number of School Counselors for all students, including LGBT
  • End all discrimination in the workplace, housing, adoption services, and public services.
  • End homelessness, including the 40% who are LGBT. In the former Soviet constitution, shelter was a basic right as was medical care, and education to the university level.            


Join us and make a difference.

          Party of Communists, USA

P.O. Box 140434

Staten Island, NY 10314-0434       718-979-6563

Get Ready! Congress Registration Deadline is August 1, 2015
| June 26, 2015 | 8:57 pm | Party Voices, political struggle | No comments

Are you going to the PCUSA Congress in New York?

Registration Deadline is August 1! You must have all of your paperwork submitted to the national office by that date! Don’t delay. Register today.

Contact comrade Angelo at the National office to be sure all of the necessary forms have been turned in: (718) 979-6563.


Communists labor for agreement of democratic parties
By A. Shaw
“Finally, they [that is, Communists] labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries,” Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto.
Hare brained elements of the U.S. left can not understand this principle of class struggle, even if their lives depended on it.
These hare brains transform the principle, cited above, into Communists labor for union and agreement with proletarian democratic parties of all countries or Communists labor for union and agreement with petty bourgeois democratic parties of all countries
This principle, as Marx and Engels formulated it, says Communists labor for union and agreement with  democratic parties of all countries.
Marx and Engels did not place class or nationality limitations on the principle. So, the priniciple applies to all democratic parties of all countries.
The hare brained element of the U.S. left argues that Marx and Engels did not intend that Communists labor for agreement between proletarian democratic parties and bourgeois democratic parties.
The FBI dominates the hare brained element of the U.S. left. The FBI imposes its 17th and 18th century bourgeois nonsense and foolishness, holding that democratic parties must not agree on . anything.
In other words, the CP and DP today should never struggle for common goals if any common goals exist.
At any given political situation or moment, there may be 1000 or more issues outstanding among democratic parties.
For a union or agreement to exist, there must be common ground on at least 1 issue between 2 democratic parties.
The 2 parties need not agree on the other 999 issues. Such unions and agreements are often called “tactical alliances” which are essential in proletarian as well as bourgeois politics.
In accordance with FBI instructions, most hare brained leftists in the USA care only about intriguing and splitting their own party. To the hare brains, the political struggle is within the party, not against the bourgeoisie outside of party.
Of course, one split is followed by another split, so on and so forth.
Thus, any idea of agreement between democratic parties, as the Manifesto advocates, seems insane or  brutish to hare brains.
Again, to hare brains, the only things that count are intrigue and splits.
Aim to win or to lose or to run

By A. Shaw

Parties aim to win or to lose or merely to run.
It’s important to ask what kind of party we’re dealing with.
Clearly, GOP and DP, the two old bourgeois parties, aim to win.
A party that aims to lose is obviously a crackpot party or anarchist.
A party that aims to run for the sake of running pretends to be the media, not a party.
In 1988, the late Gus Hall wrote “In every case the party should focus on offices it aims to win — if not in 1988, then over the course of the next few elections.”
The quote above refers to both the selection of offices to be contested as well as the selection of strategies and tactics to be used in the contest for offices.
The quote suggests if we have no chance to win, then don’t aim for the office, but if we have a chance, then go for it. Obviously, a party that aims to lose will despise this suggestion because it sees losing as a worthy and desirable outcome.
The quote further suggests that if certain strategies and tactics result in losing “over the course of the next few elections” then try other strategies and tactics.
To parties and candidates who aim to lose, these two suggestions seem to be utter nonsense.
Note that Gus Hall believed these suggestions apply “in every case.”
New wave of anti-communist hysteria in the Ukraine
| April 3, 2015 | 10:46 pm | Party Voices, political struggle, Ukraine | No comments

CP of Ukraine, New wave of anti-communist hysteria and repressions was initiated by the Ukrainian government, Thursday, 02 April 2015 13:48 Communist Party of Ukraine

The Communist Party of Ukraine informs that today, April 1, 2015, the Security Service of Ukraine initiated prosecution of the leader of Ukrainian communists Petro Symonenko on fabricated and false charges.

CP Ukraine

The Head of the Security Service Valentin Nalyvaychenko stated through media about the alleged involvement of members of the Communist Party in terrorist activities. Petro Symonenko was also accused of illegal[ly] obtaining of Russian citizenship, of involvement in the administration of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and of hiding in Russia.

The Communist Party of Ukraine states that all such charges are insinuations aimed to decapitate the leftist movement in Ukraine, to destroy its organizationally and transform it from the real opposition to the regime of junta into “pocket opposition”.

We understand that the forces are unequal and appeal to our colleagues in the leftist movement, to the communist and workers’ parties of Europe, to the members of the EU Parliament and PACE to support our struggle to stop the war in Ukraine and against the establishment of a fascist dictatorship.

We remind that the “brown plague” of fascism unleashed the carnage of World War II with the ban Communists.

If we don’t stop fascism in Ukraine today, fire of war breaks out in Europe tomorrow!

Communist Party of Ukraine

Central Committee

Department for the International Relations

Chuy Garcia and the right to a city



Chicago is abuzz these days as incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in an unexpected and fiercely competitive election runoff with challenger and longtime progressive Latino leader Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. What was supposed to have been a waltz into a second term for Emanuel has turned into a fight for his political life.

Garcia got a late start, is behind in the polls, has nothing close to the deep pockets or name recognition of Emanuel, and is up against the city’s political establishment and “Gold Coast,” but – and this is what makes the Windy City’s elites lose sleep at night – he is gathering momentum and support from many unions and community leaders and organizations. And it is entirely possible that he comes out on top when the ballots are counted on April 7.

Here’s why.

Cities are increasingly turning into battlegrounds, where different models – people versus neoliberal (corporate-elite friendly) – and their associated political coalitions clash. In recent years, The neoliberal model, of which Emanuel is a zealous advocate, is more and more encountering stiff and broad-based resistance. The few dissenters of yesterday are turning into the many today.

A telling example of this trend was the election of Bill de Blasio in New York’s mayoral race in the fall of 2013. De Blasio, who unhesitatingly described himself as a progressive, decried the city’s widening income inequality, gentrification, and the rise of two New Yorks – one living in grand style, the other struggling to make ends meet. He also opposed racist “stop and frisk,” policing, the shrinkage of affordable housing, the lack of pre-kindergarten programs, and the unfair system of taxation that favors Wall Street and the 1 percent.

Supporting his candidacy was a diverse coalition that grew rapidly in the course of the campaign (something that Garcia’s supporters should take inspiration and draw lessons from). So much so that it was evident in the final days of the campaign that de Blasio would win by a landslide as part of a broader progressive electoral sweep.

The outcome was an emphatic rebuff of the previous two mayors – the billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the utterly reactionary Rudy Giuliani. But our analysis can’t be left here. It was, if we dig a little deeper – and we don’t have to dig too far – a repudiation of pro-corporate neoliberalism and the rise of the neoliberal city, which were hallmarks of both Bloomberg’s and Guiliani’s governing strategy and style.

In voting overwhelmingly for de Blasio, New Yorkers said “enough” to a form of political and economic governance that favors commercial, real estate and banking interests, facilitates gentrification and the reconfiguring of urban space to suit the interests and sensibilities of the 1 percent, scales back public sector services, jobs, and union contracts, ramps up “aggressive” policing, promotes privatization of functions that previously were in the public sphere, especially public education, and deepens inequality.

As much as de Blasio’s landslide victory was a repudiation of neoliberal urban governance, it was in equal measure an affirmation by voters, even if not fully articulated, that they have a right to a livable, vibrant, just, and sustainable city (much like people have a right to a job, livable wage, health care, housing, equality, etc.).

Moreover, “right” in this instance, much like the right of workers to the products of their social labor, doesn’t rest on some abstract notion of justice, nor some general societal obligation (although society has such obligations). Instead it is grounded in material practices and activities of millions of New Yorkers who inhabit and create and recreate the city each and every day with labor and neighborly reciprocity in a multitude of paid and unpaid forms. That includes everything from raising children to transporting people, constructing skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges and roads, providing countless services, taking care of the sick and the elderly, creating art and culture, organizing sports, maintaining parks and green spaces, cleaning up environmentally hazardous sites, helping neighbors and coworkers, addressing disabilities needs, going to church, educating the young, engaging in politics, and on and on.

I wondered at the time of the New York elections if Emanuel, seeing the sea change that carried de Blasio into the mayor’s office, might consider a political reset in order to better position himself for a successful run for a second term in Chicago’s elections, which were coming into view. After all, he had to know that his closing of so many public schools was causing widespread discontent in the city as was his relentless push to turn over schools to private charter operators and contract out school janitorial services to major corporations.

Moreover, Emanuel’s refusal, despite promises, to reform the city’s notorious Tax Incremental Finance program and to stop the flow of public monies to subsidize corporations (Hyatt Hotels in Hyde Park) and big real estate interests also was leaving more and more people wondering if Emanuel was the right person to lead the city.

Most people in this situation would adjust their persona and policies to this brewing storm, but not Emanuel. As if to prove that it’s difficult to teach an arrogant, tone deaf, and well-heeled dog new tricks, he pressed fast-forward on his neoliberal plans and made no effort to tamp down his grating, me-first personality. Chicago’s elites hailed his intransigence and determination to stay the course. But many ordinary Chicagoans, when given the chance to express their displeasure in the first round of the mayoral primary in February, denied Emanuel a simple majority, thus forcing the April runoff with second-place finisher Garcia.

While it is uncertain if Emanuel will have to pay the ultimate price for being the loyal soldier for Chicago’s elites when voters go to the polls again, the contested nature of this election no matter what the outcome signifies the growing opposition to economic inequality, neoliberalism, and the neoliberal city, an emphatic assertion of the people’s right to a city, and a scaling up of the class and democratic struggle.

It has already given a shot in the arm to the broader movement and the progressive and left currents within that movement in Chicago as well as elsewhere. And it is serving notice, as did the election in New York, on the centrists in the Democratic Party as well as the right-wing-dominated Republican Party that the political dynamics that have shaped the country’s trajectory over the past 35 years are changing.

Admittedly, these changes don’t yet possess transformative power – that is, the power to deeply, boldly, and creatively consolidate a new governing model that accents people’s self-organization and needs, whether at the local, or, even more so, at the national level.

Nor are the changes in political dynamics in Chicago and New York – or Newark, N.J., Richmond, Calif., Seattle, or Los Angeles – observable in Lubbock, Texas, or Lincoln, Neb., or Cincinnati, Ohio, or, for that matter, Detroit. In other words, the process isn’t broad in scope either.

And yet, I can’t help but believe that the anger at the growing inequality and outlandish class privilege on display in a growing number of cities is also felt by tens of millions elsewhere. Maybe not to the same degree, maybe not to the same extent, but expressing nonetheless a rejection of the economic orthodoxy – neoliberalism – of the past four decades, ideologically embraced and politically facilitated by the top circles of the Democratic Party as well as every section of the Republican Party.

Of course, nothing that has happened in Chicago, New York, or anywhere else puts on the back burner in any way the overriding imperative of decisively defeating right-wing extremism. For the fact is the crisis bedeviling Chicago and other cities – not to mention the country as a whole – cannot be fully, or even significantly, resolved without politically crushing this extreme reactionary political movement that now commands the Republican Party. And it is both very mistaken and dangerous to think that islands of urban progressivism can be established in a surrounding and churning sea in which the most zealous and adventurist prosecutors of a form of neoliberalism that disdains even a passing rhetorical nod to democratic rights, social protection, or equality are increasingly riding the biggest waves.

But that discussion, as important as it is, is for another day. Right now, the challenge in Chicago, if New York’s experience is any guide, is to expand and deepen the cross-class, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic coalition that supports the insurgent campaign of Chuy Garcia.

While a strategy of reaching and mobilizing black, brown, and progressive white voters underpinned the historic 1983 election of Harold Washington, the city’s first Black and undeniably great mayor, a different strategy – and a far more likely winning strategy this time – is necessary to carry Garcia across the finish line in the first place.

A lot has happened since that historic night of Washington’s victory three decades ago. We’ve seen the election and reelection of an African American president that many thought impossible, by a multi-racial coalition of voters; the growing rejection of racism by significant sections of white people; the changing attitudes and new initiatives in the labor movement to address racism inside and outside of its ranks; the greater resonance of class in the thinking of working people, and more. And to this we should add the broad coalition of labor – the Chicago Teachers Union in the first place – communities of color and many of their leaders, reform democrats, independents, progressives, and sections of the left that are the mainstays of Garcia’s campaign.

This argues for an even more inclusive strategy than was employed to elect Harold Washington. In particular there is no good reason to write off a large section of white people without a struggle and in doing so run the risk of conceding many of them to Emanuel. That’s not a formula for success.

Yes, many white people, bombarded by the subtle and not so subtle racist message that Garcia doesn’t have the political or intellectual heft to be mayor – “not up to the challenge,” will have to be convinced that Chuy’s worst day as mayor will be better than Rahm’s best day. The way to do that isn’t by righteously exclaiming on the “backwardness” of white people, but rather by persuading them on the basis of their experience, common sense, better angels, and deeply felt and existential needs for jobs, livable wages, quality public education, and so on, that Chuy Garcia is best equipped on the basis of his vision, experience, and ordinary roots to lead the city.

And when combined with sustained efforts to acquaint voters throughout the city – North Side, West Side, South Side – with Garcia and his vision as well as mobilize those same voters to go to the polls on Election Day, Chicago will make history again in electing Jesus Garcia as it did decades ago when Harold Washington was elected. And in doing so the people of that great city will take another vital step to reclaim their city and future.

Photo: Chicago mayoral candidate Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s at a televised debate with current Mayor Rahm Emanuel, March 26. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia for Chicago, Facebook.

Political Independence of Parties and Gus Hall

By A. Shawgushall


Gus Hall (October 8, 1910 – October 13, 2000) was a leader and Chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate. During the Great Repression of the 1940s and 50s, Hall was indicted under the Smith Act by the bourgeois regime in Washington D.C. and was sentenced to eight years in prison. After his release, Hall led the CPUSA for over 40 years, often taking an orthodox Marxist-Leninist stance which intensely annoyed most of his comrades.


The concept of political independence varies when applied to individuals, groups, or states. With individuals, a candidate is independent when he or she is not affiliated with any political party. Again, an independent voter is a voter who does not align him or herself with a political party. However, proletarian parties commonly called their candidates “independent” as long as their candidate isn’t affiliated with a bourgeois party or another proletarian party. In the USA, when “independent” is applied to a group, it seems to mean a group that is separate from the two old bourgeois parties [the DP and GOP], even if the group is somehow affiliated or allied with other third parties.



AIMING TO WINAngela-Davis-with-Gus-Hall



“In every case the Party should focus on offices it aims to win — if not [this year] then over the course of the next few elections,” Gus Hall wrote in “Unity! The Only Way.”


Hall applied this rule in 1988 to CPUSA, but it applies today to a number of political organizations.


Under the rule which he formulates, Hall must have concluded that his party should not have focused on any of his four campaigns for president of the USA.


What does “in every case” mean?


It means in no case should a left party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win. It also means in no case should a party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win either now or over the course of the next few elections.


“Such a proposition requires a basic change in how we conduct our campaigns,” Hall wrote.


Why is this change in the conduct of campaigns basic?


Before the aiming-to-win strategy, campaigns aimed to lose or aimed merely to run. If so, then an aiming-to-win strategy is indeed a basic change.


Does the rule about a party not focusing on campaigns where the candidate can’t win, either now or over the course of the next few elections, apply also to Communists?


Hall’s answer to the question of whether the rule applies to Communists is tough to interpret, even though the rule applies to every case and a Communist candidate is a case.


Here’s Hall’s answer:


“The fact is we have now overcome the barrier that ‘Communists cannot be elected.’ Even though our candidates’ votes and constituencies took a big leap in recent elections, most of us still do not think in terms of Communists actually getting elected. This is the necessary next stage in the development of Communist campaigns,” Hall wrote.


Hall seems to be saying that Communists have recently won a number of elections, running as candidates of the two old bourgeois parties. These wins prove that the alleged barrier “Communists cannot be elected” is false. But most Communists still don’t see these wins as Communists actually getting elected; they see these wins as candidates of bourgeois parties actually getting elected. In other words, most Communists want and expect Communists to run as Communists, not as candidates of bourgeois parties.



Under the rule, as formulated above by Hall, a Communist running openly as a Communist also has to win because winning is the key thing, not merely running or losing. Further, a winning Communist, running openly as a Communist, satisfies the rule. A winning Communist, running as a candidate of a bourgeois party, also satisfies the rule.


But a losing Communist, no matter how he/she runs, is just a loser.


Lenin dealt with phony participation in political struggle in his “Leftwing Communism” and his “What Is to Be Done.”  Obviously, aiming to lose is phony participation. Lenin called it a baby disease, an infantile disorder, pseudo anarchism, quasi-anarchism, and semi-anarchism.




Hall rejects the explanation that the label of Communist is the chief cause of a loss when the candidate exposes his or her Communist affiliations.


Hall points to the political incompetence and bungling of Communists as the main cause of the losses when Communists campaign openly as Reds.


“Generally, we are good on program, but come up very short on the mass organization side of running campaigns … To reach a new, higher stage we must raise the level of professionalism in the use of media, literature, posters, and in fund raising. We must master campaign organization techniques to identify, mold and hold a Communist electoral constituency.

We must establish an apparatus to get out the vote on election day. We must focus more on door-to-door canvassing and involving non-Party volunteers,” Hall wrote, explaining why Communists who run as Communists lose.


Hall wanted Communists to master all of the specialties of the art of campaigning, even though he didn’t mention all of the specialties in the preceding paragraph.


Hall understood that amateurs are unlikely to prevail over political professionals.


Hall’s proposals were unwelcomed but quietly tolerated in 1988 when he presented them. They haven’t been acted on at all since their 1988 presentation.




Today, revolutionaries must aim to win, not the foolishness of much of the US Left of aiming to lose or aiming merely to run.


Revolutionaries can win either running as revolutionaries or running as supporters of political tendencies other than revolutionary.


The label of revolutionary pinned on a candidate is usually not the principal cause of a loss at the polls


The principal cause is that the advanced elements of the electoral base in the USA are untrained and misdirected.


Most of the US Left are incapable of doing anything.


Here is a video of Gus Hall