By A. Shaw

Dave Adkinson, who supports the national leaders of the CP for their crackdown on the Houston club, says this:

“My skin is not so thin, I was using deductive logic. Now you use religious references looking for support. Martyrdom?
What you have been doing goes far beyond criticizing, it is blatant factionalism. There are proper channels for criticism, as you should well know. We get it. You hate Sam and his beliefs.That is your choice of course. I just cant help but wonder why would you even want to be a part of the CPUSA if you so despise it, and its other members who do not follow you to the extreme left.I dont believe any of this huffing and puffing is helpful to the working class. I hope you can find peace within your own beliefs and among your followers and organize in your community for the working class.”

Mr. Adkinson, your skin may not be so thin, but your deductive logic is.

As for “Martyrdom,” Mr. Adkinson, don’t you believe that Communists should occasionally be forgiven if they “use religious references?” After all, if this isn’t so, true believers are then obliged to lynch Communists on crosses or, better still, burn Communists at the stake. Please, Mr. Adkinson, don’t hold it against me, A. Shaw, who also uses religious references.

Jesus! Folks! Talk about freedom of expression! Where has it gone? We can’t even use them religious references no more.

Mr. Adkinson, as for as your remark that the Houston club goes “far beyond criticizing … [into] blatant factionalism.”

It is often said in leftist circles that “your criticism is factionalism but my criticism is only criticism.” In other words, the difference between criticism and factionalism is often subjective and, worse, self-serving.

As for your comment “There are proper channels for criticism,” the CP constitution provides members with more than “channels.” The constitution imposes a duty on each member of the party to critically evaluate the work of the party. The constitution, unlike some of the party’s national leaders, doesn’t limit the duty of critical evaluation to certain times or to certain situations or, in your words, to certain “channels.” The constitution, in Article VI, Section 2, says:

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

So, the constitution says “each member” has a duty to critically evaluate the work of the party and of its members. Mr. Adkinson, you — not the constitution — seem to be saying either one of two things. First and more broadly, you may be saying if a member critically evaluates the work of the party merely in generalities, even then this critic is a factionalist. Or, second and more narrowly, you may be saying if a member critically evaluates the work of Sam Webb or the work of other top national CP leaders specifically, then and only then the critic is a factionalist.

The broad first alternative, mentioned above, turns the constitutionally-imposed duty of critical evaluation into “blatant factionalism” However, the narrow second alternative only commands sycophantic speech and behavior from “each member” of the party toward their national leaders.

It’s unclear, Mr. Adkinson, which of the two alternatives — the broad one or the narrow one– you subscribe to.

As far as your critical evaluation of “huffing and puffing” … Mr. Adkinson, I’m sure you concede that huffing and puffing is something which almost everybody finds irresistible.