Dearest friends,
Some of you have heard that I resigned last month from the National Board and National Committee, so I’m writing to explain.
​Fifteen years ago we began a long-overdue process of change and renovation of the Party. Unfortunately, deep-seated resistance was a drag on that process, every step of the way. This would be a very long letter if I gave even a few examples of the problem, so I won’t do that, because in the end, my biggest concern boils down to whether the organization itself is viable.
​I am convinced, after 35 years in the Party, 29 of which were spent working full time, that it cannot be built because we have not been able to adapt to new conditions.
​I make this heretical statement from the vantage point of someone whose jobs over those 29 years were almost always focused on the organization itself (NY Organization Secretary, NY District Organizer, National Organization Secretary).
​We tried many, many things — we tried everything! From the basic approach of asking members to “recruit” people they worked with in movements, unions and neighborhoods, ​to public spokespeople whose job it was to promote and grow the Party​, to ​street recruiting and​ making it possible to sign up online, we tried everything. I think we tried very hard​.
​We engaged in endless discussions about how to get our ​members to recruit others. Because hardly anyone recruited — full timers and a few other brave souls were the exception. ​Yet instead of criticizing people for this lack of recruiting results (or making excuses for it), we should have examined it. Instead of looking at the reluctance of all of those comrades (often the best members, the most active in “mass work”), and concluding that maybe they were onto something, we told ourselves over and over that all we had to do was convince them otherwise, and we’d grow.
The culture of seeing the world through rose-​colored glasses; of calling the glass half full when in fact it is just leaking; of denial of reality, is very strong in the Party. And perhaps some of it was unavoidable, and maybe even served a purpose, given what we’re up against.
​But here we are, in 2015, and that culture is so powerful that we will not admit what is absolutely true and completely obvious: we are tiny, we are shrinking, we are aging, fast, and this has been the direction for decades. People may like us, they may tell us privately that they think we’re the greatest activists and organizers, but they very rarely join and most of those who do become like the rest of us – reluctant to claim and build the organization.
Bernie S​anders’ popularity does not alter in any way the negative connotations of the words “communism†and “Communist Party.†As a matter of fact, his popularity is an argument in favor of changing our name; in favor of trying to create an organization that reflects and represents the values he talks about and to which people are attracted.
​
I have been pushing for such big changes, first and foremost, in our name, but more than that. I’m for an entirely new formation with radical, democratic, egalitarian, humanistic, ecological, socialist politics; with an organizational culture that encourages innovation and experimentation, requires critical discussion and scrupulous realism, and prizes collectivity and transparency.
I think we need an organization that fits how people live, work, think and feel today, which is so profoundly different from even a decade, let alone a century, ago.
As I said, though we started this process of change quite a long time ago, too many resisted it, including, or maybe even especially, those in leadership. For all kinds of reasons it has been incredibly hard for people to set ​aside their personal feelings about this, about our history, about the heroic and priceless contributions we can rightly claim as ours, to the struggle for peace, equality and justice.
​And believe me, I have those attachments too, starting with pride in my own family’s history; in ​my uncles, one of whom went to jail during the McCarthy period, another who fought the fascists in Spain, and another who chose prison rather than going to Vietnam. I am proud of my parents who stood by him and protested that war; who were in Washington when Dr. King made his I Have a Dream speech and participated in the Civil Rights movement, and who supported me (including at times financially) when I decided to work full time for the Party. I have been proud to call myself a Communist since I was 20 years old, and it’s how I chose to be known by everyone in my life, almost all my life.
​But now I have concluded that since I don’t believe the Communist Party can be built, and that a very different kind of organization is needed, and since I can’t stand the culture of denial and what amounts to allowing something I value deeply – our politics – to go down the drain, I can no longer participate.
​
​A couple of years ago I sent a letter to people in the leadership, in which I argued that we should not only get rid of the name, but go further and initiate something new. I said we should take our irreplaceable essence — broad, thoughtful, strategic politics, our love of humanity, our Marxist method of analyzing and understanding the world, our integrity and working-class character — and create something new. We should be ready to join with others in the formation of a new left organization that fits today’s conditions and moves away from the political margins. Such an organization is desperately needed and would make a big contribution.
I also believe we could do this in a way that examined the past, honoring the good part, rejecting the bad, and learning from both.
However, that letter and countless other letters, discussions and meetings in which I’ve made this case, didn’t convince enough of you. My level of frustration has become damaging, to me and to you, many of whom I’ve know and loved and worked side by side with for decades. So I’m letting it go, and will find another way to participate in the struggle to right the many, many things that are wrong in this world of ours. I feel as passionately about that now as I ever did – maybe even more so.
All the best,
Elena
An interesting letter – having resigned from the Socialist Party last year, I do not want to address the merits of the Communist Party – those are old arguments. But rather the clear need for democratic socialists to build links, even if informal, as a radical movement is desperately needed and the Sanders campaign suggests it is possible.
In my mind, “Communist Party” means either a Stalinist/Maoist party or a democratic one associated with Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s reforms (eg. Eurocommunism). So the name is not bad for you if you believe in either of those two systems. In fact, I think it’s worth calling yourself what you believe in as a matter of principle.
If you choose the second one (eg. the path of Khrushchev’s Reforms), then the legacy of Stalinism, remains a burden to address in the eyes of many Americans who still associate the USSR with Stalin. In that case, your real answer to what you see as a major problem with the party should not be things like name changing but joining with the other Leninist groups that reject Stalin’s legacy, which only incidentally could result in a name change.
It is our belief that a Communist Party in the USA can only arise based on US history, traditions, governmental structures and should at the same time fully embrace the scientific socialism of Marxism Leninism. What has traditionally been absent from left parties in the US is competence in political struggle and that needs to be corrected so that working people can achieve state power. Anything less is merely surrender to the bourgeoisie.
The letter is remarkably bare of reference to objective conditions, except for the vague allusion about how “people live, work, think and feel today, which is so profoundly different from even a decade … ago.”
These reasons and the destruction of the YCL are why I stopped paying dues.
Greetings Comrade Elena,
Thank you for all of your hard work and devolution that you contributed to the Party over many years!
I am very impressed with the Brave stands that your three uncles took during those hard and difficult times in our country.
Please give them my regards.
I look forward to working with you in the near future.
Sincerely,
James F. Harrington
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.
What is your point?
As a Comrade from Britain, what I see here is a Euro-Communist giving up an attempt to destroy the party. In the 1980s we had the exact same process actually happen to our party, attempts at “modernising” the party, and the eventual disillusion of the Communist Party of Great Britain and its transformation into a pressure group called “Democratic Left” which faded into irrelevance overnight. Euro-Communist is a poisonous term here now, due to their literal destruction of the Communist movement in Britain. They abandoned even the most basic elements of Marxism, and most of them ended up becoming members of the Labour Party, and completely giving up on Communism. You are a Communist Party, and you should remain so, yes your party has flaws, but so does every party, and you should work to rectify them and make the party viable, not to give up, and become some kind of Liberal Pressure group. Best of luck Comrades.