Los Angeles Metro Club

2437 Centinela Av., #2

Santa Monica, CA. 90405

lamtrocpusa@hotmail.com

www.cpusalametro.org

___________________________

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM…

We, the members of the Los Angeles Metro Club of the CPUSA write this appeal to you, the National Board of the CPUSA, in the spirit of party unity, fairness, and comradeship. We understand the complexity and sensitive nature of the issues of the most recent flareup in Houston but we do not consider the matter settled. We believe that there must be a fuller discussion within the party about our role as communists in American society and our relationship to the working class, the class we purport to represent. Censorship and intimidation are not conducive to having this discussion.

We have been told that we can’t struggle in the world as we wish it to be. That we must accept the political terrain as it is and that we must “be realistic.” We ask ourselves what if Marx, Engels, and Lenin had said that? What if they lived in a politically “realistic” world. Marx said in regard to this problem, “philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however is to change it.” Theory then evolves into a discussion of how fast or how slow society should move. The Chinese with their ‘cultural revolution’ tried to accelarate the pace of their socialist development. History proved them wrong. At the time, our party, the CPUSA supported the CPSU position and rejected the cultural revolution.

Our party did not support Leon Trotsky or his famous theory of ‘permanent revolution’ either. Lenin spoke against Trotsky and his theory several times. Later it was found that Trotsky was not only a spy for Germany, Poland, and Japan up to the beginning of WWII, but was also a rabid anti-communist that had nothing in common with the Bolsheviks. He later worked for the Hearst capitalist press as an expert on Soviet Russia. Some expert! So why is this ancient history so important? Because now, we understand that Bernard Sampson, the Chair of the newly recognized CPUSA club in Houston is a Trotskyite; an anti-communist! A friend of Bernard in Los Angeles, Mr. Grady Daughtery has told us that he was in the Trotskyite Sparticist League in Los Angeles with Bernard and that the Sparticist League campaigned actively against the United Farm Workers union. Further, Bernard advocated that workers should break strikes of the workers because they were lead by a ‘bourgeois union leader’, Cesar Chavez.

How did the Los Angeles Metro Club get involved in the activities of the Houston CPUSA club? Two ways. We are involved in the U.S. Peace Council and we participate with the Houston Peace Council in activities like the anti-NATO campaign. We know about their fine work with the Cuban 5 case. We learned about their website and put a link on our website and became friends with them on Facebook. Although we were told that the problem in Houston was with one individual, we know that this is untrue because of their relationship with us in the U.S. Peace Council. So, you see, there is always more than one side to every story.

We are very disappointed with the decision of the CPUSA National Board to intervene in the internal affairs of the Houston club. We are more disappointed that they have chosen to intervene in our club’s internal matters. We have done nothing but try to carry on the fight against war, fight imperialism, and build proletarian solidarity. Along the way we have met some great comrades. This all seems legitimate to us; on the up and up. There is no conspiracy as intimated by the comrades investigating the problems in Houston. Although, we do wonder why the comrades on the National Board would accept the version of events of known Trotskyites without interviewing others.

Our club stands firmly against censorship. Censorship is un-American and a return to the McCarthy era. We don’t want to go there and we don’t want our party to go there. We hope that as Marxist-Leninists our party has matured since then. Are we wrong? We hope not, but we are concerned. Since when does the national party tell clubs what groups they can associate with? Since when does the national party tell clubs what links and other information to put on its website and Facebook page? We are a club of communists with a healthy collective leadership, so why not trust us to decide what groups and clubs to associate with and what to put on our website or Facebook page? We don’t post irresponsible or counter-revolutionary articles or information there. We don’t have any relations with right-wing reactionary organizations. We participate fully in the activities of our district, and support its political line. However, when we receive information from other clubs around the country that don’t fully agree with the thought that is disseminated by the national party centre we feel it is our duty as communists to publish it. There are legitimate concerns about the party’s future and the party’s relationship with the working class. We have written previously on this in another letter to Political Affairs.

We do not see how frank, open discussion of communist history hurts our party. Our history is important to us. Our party’s relationship with the USSR and the CPSU is important to remember. It is a part of us. To deny it is to succumb to anti-communism and plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. To say that America is somehow exceptional to the rest of the world is not communist ideology and those that hold this point of view are not communists. They shouldn’t be in our party. We do not need to pander to elements that are anti-communist to build the party unless our objective is to destroy the CPUSA: the party of a new type envisioned by Lenin. We are not Social-Democrats. We are not populists. We are not progressives. We are communists: builders and leaders of mass movements that fight for a world beyond capitalism. We are not satisfied with our present situation of high unemployment, cuts in our Social Security and our social safety net and pensions, and of endless racism , sexism, and imperialism. As part of our struggle, we include electoral work. We consider this to be one tool in our arsenal of defense of our class interest, but by no means the only one. There are other things that we must do simultaneously to win workers to our side. We must be seen and we must earn the trust and respect of the workers. There is only one way to do that. We feel that the leadership of our party has forgotten this lesson and has embarked on a cynical downward spiral and that our party has ceased to be a revolutionary party. We see liquidation and retirement on the horizon and are reminded of comrade Hall’s words that “communists don’t retire.” Being in the party is not a job. It is a devotion to our class: the working class. It is a devotion to a historical inevitability. As Eugene Debs said, “socialism is as certain as the setting of the sun.”

Where does this cynicism and sense of entitlement come from? Why do comrades in leading positions in our party feel that their personal status is more important than the ideological health of the party? Why does our party editorialize against other communist nations, namely the DPRK? Don’t these nations have a right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression? Perhaps this is what the leaders of the Houston club are concerned about. Is the CPUSA saying that the Houston comrades have no right to be concerned? Are they saying that to point out weaknesses in our leadership contradicts the party line and promotes factionalism? If they are, they are wrong. We happen to believe that some of the criticisms of the Houston club have merit. We believe that the National Board has acted in its own self interest, and not in the best interest of the whole party. We further believe that there needs to be a wider discussion within the party of why people are not joining the party in greater numbers and why many don’t stay after they join. This discussion would lead to a finding that there needs to be change in the thinking at the top. Democratic centralism is a two way street. It also must work from the bottom up. There can be no top down solution.

When our club discussed the report to us by our club chair concerning his meeting with the directors of the California district about Houston, we were immediately insulted when it was reported that the problems in Houston were “just like Evelina.” Evelina Alarcón was replaced in a similar autocratic manner as was the New York Arts & Entertainment club and Houston club. We were promised by Sam Webb and others that things would be different, that there would be a more transparent approach to party problems. So far, this has not been the case. In fact, it is less transparent now than before. There is less communication, not more. Comrades in the Metro club were used in the battle to remove Evelina and now our situation is much worse. People have lost respect for us since Evelina’s arbitrary removal. We never took a vote on whether or not to remove her, and we never elected the leadership of the Southern California collective that has replaced her.Although we have never met the Chair of the Houston club, we can sympathize with him.

Finally, we say that although we disagree with the demand to remove content from our website, we have done so. We will, however, continue to work on the mass activities that we are involved in and we hope to have many more discussions in the party on the topic of party unity and action. We hope that it is not against policy of the National Board to help our comrades in the former Soviet Union and other people fighting to restore socialism in their countries, and to help in building peace organizations. These activities we will never cease. It is our proletarian responsibility to fight for our our class around the world! We hope that we have your blessing as we carry on this important work.

Communist Party,
Los Angeles Metro Club

Here is a list of links to articles regarding the current crisis in the CPUSA:

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/communist-forum/a-canadian-discussion-contribution-829.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/communist-forum/adopted-resolutions-texas-state-cp-convention-820.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/international-criticism-of-webbs-a-party-of-socialism-for-the-2st-century-1232-2.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/phialdephia-club-urges-extraordinary-conference-1130-2.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/reply-to-sam-webbs-essay-on-a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-what-will-it-look-like-1129.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/another-dark-day-in-cpusa-history-739.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/honor-the-cpusa-constitution-dont-ignore-it-1131.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/why-the-cpusas-present-political-line-unity-against-the-ultra-right-is-wrong-and-harmful-1377.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/marxist-theory/communists-and-the-so-called-socialism-of-the-21st-century-1258-2.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/sam-webbs-a-ragged-process-a-historical-consideration-728.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/opportunism-reformism-revisionism/interest-in-communism-surges-where-is-the-cpusa-1299.html

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/communist-forum/a-tangled-webb-a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-1103-2.html

Check out these links to articles by Sam Webb on the CPUSA:

http://peoplesworld.org/a-ragged-process/

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-what-it-looks-like-what-it-says-and-what-it-does/

Feel free to make comments as well.

by Eric Brooks, January 2011

Dolores Ibárruri, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Spain, in the context of the Siege of Madrid (10/1936-3/1939) made famous the slogan “¡No Pasarán!” – fascists shall not pass. The call resonates today, evoking a spirit of revolutionary optimism and defiance: Exploiters shall not pass!
– Eric Brooks

I have walked in that hinterland of despair that is unemployment. I have felt the cold hand of fear clasp my heart as needed services disappear one by one and finally the cupboards are bare and the lights are turned off and there is no more gas for the car.

While the social democrats speak of process and winning small battles, the battle at hand is big, and the urgency of now demands fundamental change in our society and in the priorities that inform our social decisions.The necessary tasks facing us as members of the working class, working women and men, we who do not exploit others for our enrichment, are immense.

The material conditions required for sustaining human life, our beautiful planet and its necessary environment, are a casualty of capitalist exploitation. US wages don’t meet the basic needs of great masses of people who find themselves making choices between shelter and food, necessary medicines and heat.

Our youth are indentured to the banks for the cost of education, their aspirations to develop themselves and build a foundation for a stable life turned against them. Many find that stability beckons but is always and increasingly beyond reach.

Read more »

From Labor Up-Front: In the people’s fight against the crisis (page 94)

By Gus Hall

Main Weakness-Sectarianism

…for the present period the nature of the main weakness that holds us back from measuring up can be characterized as sectarianism-a deficiency that comes in many varieties-Left and Right.

The deficiency derives from both a lack of appreciation of the level and the scope of the mass trends and a lack of understanding of the new features of the mainstream and the Left current, as well as from not understanding or fully appreciating the unique and necessary contributions we Communists can and must make to these movements. So the deficiency is both an underestimation of the mass upsurge and the Party’s role in it.

When masses are not in motion, when the waves of struggle are at ebbtide, it is necessary to pursue policies and tactics that sometimes go sharply against the stream-tactics and policies of an opposition, policies that one could call sectarian, as Karl Marx once did. We have experienced such periods. This, however, is not one of those periods. In a period of high tide such policies and tactics turn into their very opposite. They do not lead. They tail events.

The struggle against sectarianism requires the conscious and consistent, never-ending seeking out and nurturing of allies, especially allies who are ready to work with us as Communists.

One of the very important features of this period, as I indicated previously, is that the number of such people on the Left is growing very fast. Increasingly such people are seeking us out and expressing the desire to consult with us. These are people who will and do disagree with us on some questions. They may be ready to work with us in only one or two areas. They will have ideological flaws of many kinds. They may have had, and may still express, anti-Party concepts and slanders. But the real truth is that if we cannot work with such people, then who the hell can we work with. The fact is that if we cannot work with such people we are not going to work with anyone-except ourselves.

In mass work, the words “working with and giving leadership to” are a very important concept. If we do not practice this concept, if we do not respect the independent character of the mass movements, we can never win their respect for our leadership. Even in mass organizations in which Communists are in leading positions they cannot be viewed or characterized as “our movements.” Only the Party is ours.
Our relationship with mass organizations and movements must be shaped by the fact that we are not out to “take over,” or to dominate administratively, because it does not serve any useful purpose. Communists must be the very best of team players. The push for Communists to run for elective office, whether in a trade union or in an ad hoc committee, must come from one’s co-workers. It must be earned.

Of course there are times when differences must be discussed. But we must always remember who is the main enemy. We must be careful in our judgments. We must always use the explanatory tone. We must always take into account the sum total of facts before resorting to criticism. We must continue to master the art of discussing-not debating or arguing-while working together as allies and friends.

We must put subjective and personal feelings on the back burner. They must not be permitted to become obstacles to working with people who may sometimes irritate us. We must always meet people more than halfway in order to win them, to convince people that it is possible, necessary and even enjoyable to work with us, even if we do not agree on everything. We must never assume that we are always right.

We must not follow the petty-bourgeois Maoist line of treating all who are not one hundred percent with us as being one hundred percent against us. We simply must not tolerate such attitudes.

In this context, for example, a policy of building only Left unity in a period when Center forces are in motion is sectarianism. Left unity is a very important concept. And in the context of building Left-Center unity it is a necessary concept. But a Left unity that rejects working with the Center forces is sectarian.
Experience in united front struggles shows that differences are lessened if the Party carries on independent propaganda on issues on which there are differences. Thus, Party propaganda in the form of leaflets, pamphlets and lectures is most necessary and very helpful in our united front work, especially if our materials are explanatory and convincing.

United front, wrote Lenin, is a method of mobilizing working people who either have no special or specific philosophy but who are for democracy, or people who are under the influence of reformist, revisionists or opportunists.

On the united front, Lenin said:

The purpose and sense of the tactics of the united front consist in drawing more and more masses of the workers into the struggle against capital, even if it means making repeated offers to the leaders of the Second and Second-and-a-half Internationals. (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 411)

At a recent Conference of Communist and Workers Parties (Moscow, 1969) the resolution stated:

Communists should not regard everyone who is critical of the Soviet Union or the Communist Party, or who differ on one or another issue as being anti-Communist and who must be fought and rejected as far as the united front is concerned.

In this period, when the Party is pursuing a mass policy and when the members are involved in mass movements, there are of course other kinds of problems that emerge that are of a Right-opportunist nature.

When involved in mass movements there are always pressures for Communists to act and even talk like just good old plain progressives, to talk like good anti-monopoly fighter, like good democrats, like good trade unionists, like good national liberation fighters, like good old liberals.

Now there is nothing wrong with talking and acting like good trade unionists or progressives. It becomes a weakness if our activities are limited to that level. (emphasis is admins) We have more to say about reforms than reformists do. For us tactics are related to strategic objectives. Our exposes are not limited to the boss or the corporation. We expose them as links in the system.

Some who work on the level of reformists continue to go to club meetings, read our press and quote Marxist classics. But the fact is that very often the opportunism begins to corrode the ideological and political innards. Such comrades will begin to lose their class and socialist consciousness, and in time slip into a fantasy world where they think they can get along as well and even better outside the Party. This of course is opportunism and it is also liquidating the Party.

There are warning signs of this weakness. When comrades work in mass organizations and movements and never get a subscription to the Daily World, People’s World or to Political Affairs, never recruit a new member-that is a warning signal that such comrades need help. They need political and ideological help. We cannot accept as natural that a comrade works in a shop, is a member of a trade union or a mass organization for 15, 20 and even 25 years and never recruits enough to start a club of the Communist Party. Some retire without ever recruiting anyone.

Such comrades were good old trade unionists, or good old democrats and democratic fighters for all those years, but they did not live and work as Communists-ideologically, politically or personally.
We must be clear that although working with mass movements may lead to problems of Right opportunism, that must never be permitted to become a conscious or unconscious excuse for not pursuing a mass policy, for not being involved in mass struggles. That would be like deciding not to plant a garden because you may have problems with opportunistic bugs and worms.

From Working Class USA: The Power and the Movement (p. 95)

By Gus Hall

In a period of ebb in social, political and economic struggles it is not always easy to judge what are necessary adjustments in tactics. And it is not easy to separate tactics that correctly reflect the new problems, the new relationship of forces of the ebb period, from actions that are motivated by an opportunistic retreat from the difficulties of struggle of such a period. What adds to the difficulty is that there are pressures for both.

Opportunistic retreat and a shift in tactics appear simultaneously because they are reactions to the same realities. It is further complicated by the fact that in most cases the paths of opportunistic retreat starts with very necessary and correct steps of tactical adjustment. Where one ends and the other begins is at times very difficult to determine because there also are periods when one individual can reflect a mixture of both and also because the rationale for a retreat often sounds very much like the rationale for a tactical shift.

The key word in determining one from the other is “struggle.” A correct tactical adjustment is not a shift away from struggle. It is a shift of tactics for and in struggle. Tactics after all have meaning only when they are an integral part of the struggle. On the other hand an opportunistic retreat is an edging away from struggle. It is a process of giving up positions, making unnecessary concessions, and all this without struggle. A correct tactical shift is to find a new path to struggle, while an opportunistic retreat is a way of avoiding struggle, and giving up positions, thinking this will placate the enemy.

By Gus Hall
Main report, 24th National Convention, CPUSA

In the minds of the people today there is a coming together of the two broadest concerns that involve the great peace and democratic majority:
1) the concern for the preservation of humanity and nature because of the threat of nuclear war, and,
2) the deep concern for the preservation of U.S. democracy, the democratic structure and democratic rights.
The danger in both cases comes from the same source: the most reactionary
militaristic, chauvinistic and racist, and anti-labor section of monopoly capital…
The broad forces reflecting overall democratic traditions and feeling include the working class, middle class, intellectuals, professionals and people in the mass media. This includes large numbers of Afro-Americans, Chicano-Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and other oppressed minorities.
How to tap the potential of this moment with initiatives that will lead to mass actions by the broadest democratic forces is the task at hand. Our task is to tap this potential so as to give rise to forms of political independence that will lead toward a new popular mass political party.
…There is a need for new initiatives, for the building of a people’s movement to establish a new democratic structure, a people’s democratic structure. There is a need for movements and struggles to strip the executive branch of much of its powers, to limit or repeal its war making powers and for constitutional reforms. In a nuclear world, no one individual should have such powers.
There is a need for people’s movements in the struggle to cut the military budget to the bone, to put an end to the war economy and the war budget.
It is possible to go on an ideological offensive against monopoly capitalism. It is a moment when millions can be made to see that monopoly capitalism is the root of all social evils, that it is associated with everything that is anti-democratic, corrupt, immoral, that hard rock of capitalist reality.