This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA’s 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. All contributions to the discussion should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection not to the individual venues.For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can email convention2010@cpusa.org.

Of course, we must update Marx, Lenin, and Gus Hall and apply basic principles to the present. However, we need to ask ourselves if we are discarding “old” ideas because they don’t appeal to the working class or because we are drifting in our ideology. In rereading the following taken directly from Political Report to National Committee/National Council by Gus Hall, September 19, 1992, I would suggest that other than reference to specific events at that time, it is even more applicable today.

THE PLUS

There are a lot of experiences and experiments and good work. But there are weaknesses. The overall level of our work is not high enough.

For example, to the extent that we become more involved in mass work, to the extent the weaknesses of not integrating the concept of the plus shows up, and with it, the lack of recruiting. We still have not yet mastered the art of including the plus concept in all our work. Without the plus we cannot recruit. Without it, we cannot raise class consciousness, and certainly not socialist consciousness. The plus prepares people for the Party.

Take the present economic situation. It is not enough to blame the closing of GM plants on GM in general. It is not enough to blame mass layoffs or the lack of medical care on the Reagan-°©‐Bush years. We have to do that. But it is not enough. It is enough for reformists, but not enough for Communists.

It is interesting to note that years ago the Social Democrats and the capitalist press used to slander the party by saying the Communists always blame everything on the system. Looking back, actually that was a compliment because they were slandering our plus.

Our most important and unique contribution, by way of the plus, must be to explain in the most basic and simple ways how and why the problems the people face are ultimately the results of the capitalist system, the exploitation, racism and oppression.

At the recent steelworkers convention, the delegates from the Canadian section of the union included the plus. They spoke about capitalism as the basic problem and they mentioned socialism. They talked about ‘Rambo” capitalism. They got standing ovations.

One of the residues from the factional period is the lack of focus on industrial concentration, on workingclass concentration. In their petty bourgeois minds industrial concentration was a dirty word. This was related to their non-class position.

The plus gives industrial concentration a deeper meaning. Without the plus we can be involved in mass work all out lives and never recruit anyone.

The Party can only grow on the basis of the influence of the plus. The plus must be a factor in the plan of work. The objective situation is now more open for our plus.

During the ten months since the convention we have made important headway. But there are some weaknesses.

In thinking about what it will take to raise the level of the work of the Party to new levels an old idea comes to mind.”

PLAN OF WORK

There was a time when the Party planned and organized its work on the basis of plans of work. The fact is without a plan of work it is impossible to function on the basis of priorities. It is impossible to have overall direction in our work. Without a plan, it is impossible to deal with concretes. It is impossible to focus on the working class without an overall plan of work. Without a plan, industrial concentration is but one of the many equally important tasks we do. Drawing up a plan forces us to think in concrete terms.

So plans of work, on all levels, are necessary to move to a new, higher level of work. Without plans there can be no checkup or follow‐up, no assessment. Without a plan of work we respond to whatever moves us at the moment. Reading the letters and reports from districts and clubs is a study in just this kind of problem.

The plans of work must respond to the question: how can we raise our work to a higher level?

Whether and how we do this depends very much on how we see the nature and role of our Party today. (Bell’s emphasis)

To measure this we have to take a fresh look at Lenin’s concept of a party of a new type.

Lenin’s concept of a workingclass revolutionary political party was molded in the struggle against liberal, petty bourgeois, social democratic concepts of the Party. In theory, these forces were reformist. Organizationally, they were anarchists. In life, they were discussion circles.

Lenin’s concept was developed in response to the historic role and revolutionary tasks of the working class.

Lenin developed the structure of democratic centralism, with the clubs as the base of the Party’s activities. Without clubs there is no need for democratic centralism.

The Leninist structure presented the idea of active leadership of mass movements and struggles – by clubs. It added the element of active leadership to the concept of influencing mass moods, mass thought pattern and mass trends.

Lenin presented the concept of main concentration on industrial mass production workers as a cornerstone of the Party.

A Party of a new type was necessary in order to fulfill the leading role of the Party. Lenin’s new type party is a party with communist essence, with the communist plus. That has not changed. (Bell’s emphasis)

We must take the political, ideological and structural essence of this concept as a guide to mold our own party of a new type, in response to our present situation.”

CLUBS OF A NEW TYPE

In life what does this mean? It means clubs of a new type. Our criticisms in this area do not mean that we in the leadership have the right answers, but the clubs don’t accept or apply them. If we had the answers, the clubs would have done so. These weaknesses are to a large extent reflections of weaknesses in our leadership. We must also not approach the clubs as if there are no objective problems. There are many.” In the original document there follows many paragraphs on the prerequisites of becoming a club of a new type.

RECRUITING

We have to ask why we don’t recruit more. The objective conditions are ripe. We are certainly in need of new members. People need our party, now more than ever.

To answer this, we should give some thought to why people join our party. Some join for reasons of friendship. Others like the work we do in mass movements or our contributions in mass organizations. But the most solid kind of recruits are those who are convinced ideologically, who are class conscious, who believe socialism is the solution. These are the people recruited by our plus. (Bell’s emphasis) Within our overall plans we have to have specific approaches to recruiting. We have to have timetables and goals. We have to inject the plus. (Bell’s emphasis)”

Recommendations:

1. Study the concept of the communist plus and how we apply it today.
2. Reestablish the Organization department.
3. Charge the Education Department with producing educationals on the communist plus and basic Marxist‐Leninist concepts.

This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA’s 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. All contributions to the discussion should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection not to the individual venues.For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can email convention2010@cpusa.org.

In my opinion the main discussion documents have strengths but also weaknesses.

Strengths:

• Emphasis on working with the masses. No impossible ultra-radical demands.
• Emphasis on recruitment.
• Emphasis on developing a presence on the internet.

To me the main weakness is working in a communist way. As Chairman Webb said in the teleconference kickoff: “sometimes we have a difficulty in turning our mass work into communist mass work.”

I don’t think the documents will to do anything to solve that problem. I also think their contents will be a hindrance in recruiting. Several interrelated points that I see as problematic:

a. Democratic party, bourgeois politics

The approach to Obama and the Democrats is too amicable. For example, I brought two left-Democrat guests to a Party presentation in my area a while back. One: “First time I went to a meeting of communists, and I realized I was to the left of all of them.” The other: “I figured out what the Communist Party is – a bunch of centrist Democrats.”

It can’t be a good sign that random observers get this impression of the Party.

The style and subjects of many articles in the Party press are admiring of Obama and the Democrats. Since the Democrats are a bourgeois party, class analysis has to be sacrificed in order to praise them.

What about “concrete gains, however minimal or compromised”?

Why is it that the people we’re supposed to be building unity with (Democrats) avoid us like the plague, while the right-wing (Beck et al) wants to put us into the media? A couple first page hits on Google for CPUSA are right-wing pieces hooting about the similarity between the CPUSA and Democratic programs.

Democrats want no association with us, while the right-wing wants to make that association. If you want to play the bourgeois politics game, I’d say we’re hurting more than helping: the aid of a small organization versus a right-wing propaganda coup.

Socialism by the ballot box?

But Marxists have always said that the whole structure of bourgeois democracy is set up to be anti-democratic; to let capital dominate.

Compare to the original Party program, 1919:

Part II, pt. 2: “Although the United States is called a political democracy there is no opportunity whatever for the working class through the regular political machinery to effectively oppose the will of the capitalist state.”

Part II, pt. 6: “Not one of the great teachers of scientific Socialism has ever said that it is possible to achieve the Social Revolution by the ballot.”

b. Class struggle muted

“simplistic” to divide politics up into two opposing camps, one of capitalists and one of workers

Compare to the famous lines of the Communist Manifesto:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight.”

On workers: “Separately, neither the president nor the people’s organizations nor the working class can win.”

The working class cannot win alone?

Compare to the insights of the economic theory of Marx – the proletariat is a sleeping giant, controlling the levers of production. That control gives them the ultimate social power, which they can use if they can reach a high level of class consciousness.

Our founding Party program, Part III, pt. 4: “It is our duty as Communists, who understand the class struggle, to point out to the workers that upon the workers alone depends their own emancipation and that it is impossible to accomplish this through capitalist political machinery, but only by the exercise of their united economic power.”

Building anti-capitalist consciousness – where?

I think this should be a critical part of our work, and that it is part of our unique role. But the document says:

“I would not agree, however, that reforms are impossible, or even that the underlying dynamics and laws of motion can’t be modified.”

“Capitalism is more elastic than some believe…”

“Nor should we take the position that our emphasis has to be on the bankruptcy of capitalism…”

In this period of crisis, when the WSJ, Newsweek, etc. are in paroxysms defending capitalism, even though nobody’s really attacking it, just because it’s failing so self-evidently – and the other side of the debate isn’t joined by the CPUSA. Are the WSJs right? We’re willing to let it slide?

c. Practical action

Go out and be progressive

Here’s an example of what a progressive might think it means to be progressive (Cesca of Huffington Post): “I’ve always thought that a successful progressive movement involved three things: an ongoing marginalizing of the far-right; arguing for progressive policies; and promoting and encouraging the careers of politicians and organizations that are best equipped to help pass progressive legislation.”

What more do we have?

Getting people to join

The real imperative is getting people to join.  But as now there’s not a compelling reason to join.

Identifying as communist has a cost – most people think of a totalitarian system that failed. You want to agitate for health care and they’re thinking about Stalin or Pol Pot. There is some risk of being discriminated against, and supposed-ally Democrats will want to keep you away.

To balance this burden what does one get?

The answer needs to be: an independent anti-capitalist program.

The line seems to be that you get the advantage of understanding Marxism if you join – the “strategic insights” and “understanding of Marxism” – mentioned in the document. But you don’t have to be part of the Party to read Marx or Lenin. That’s no answer.

As is, its hard to see why someone would join. I try to recruit people, but it’s a tough sell.

I agree with the YCL comrades who say that it’s important to establish what our “value-added” is. I disagree with their assessment that one source is our supposed capability to build “left-center unity.” Trying to unite with Democrats – who view us as loons and a liability – seems incorrect.

The answer to the value-added question needs to lie not in our unity with a bourgeois party that derides and attacks us, but in our practical – not impossibly radical – anti-capitalism and reputation for consistent class struggle.

Sum

To my mind, being a communist is about bringing an anti-capitalist perspective to the progressive movement. Anti-capitalist class struggle is our best ideological weapon and our best recruiting tool – it should never be sacrificed. The truth is revolutionary. We should never let any strategic policies obscure this.

The anti-ultra-right phase has passed. It’s time for anti-monopoly struggle. This is based not only on the political terrain but also the economic – which as Marxists we should give heavy weight! There is enormous sentiment against monopoly capital due to the crisis and the bailouts. Capitalism itself is debated in mainstream media outlets. We can get our message out there and we can build our Party. If the crisis deepens or drags, which is likely, anti-capitalism may be called on to test forces in a direct encounter.

By Ron Gray via Political Affairs

I am inclined to agree with much of the recent article “Save the party.” However, concerning the internet, while not a panacea it can be a very useful tool. I am an internet recruit. Since affiliating myself with the party, I and four other web heads have started a club (pending party acceptance). I have written an article about the news media’s ignoring important statements made by the new CEO of Bank of America which was published, in People’s World. Another member is working on an article and a membership campaign after a furniture factory closing in North Carolina. Our club is working on a campaign to change people’s perception of the party here in the Carolinas. Once quite strong in the Carolinas, we have lost our advantage due to inactivity and the passing of former members. We must embrace this new technology, using it to our best advantage: to drive membership, fund raising and keep comrades informed and motivated. I agree with you that we can’t accept just anyone that sends in an application without some vetting process. There has to be some balance. There might be some people that because of illness or handicap can only participate via internet. But, they may make significant contributions. The ultimate goal must be finding and nurturing active, contributing members. To make the party strong we must have a large tent and allow for exceptions and diversity even in our membership policy. As Communists, Diversity and flexibility have been our strengths and bureaucracy and rigid policy our weakness.

I agree we must differentiate ourselves from the democrats and more closely examine ourselves against our Marxist ideals I agree that any step in the right direction should be embraced wherever it might come from but, we are communists not democrats. Let us boldly proclaim our identity and the noble truths it stands for. If we weaken our stand we run the risk of losing those principles that make us unique. We are a uniquely American communist party but, we must remain in unity and solidarity with our comrades in other countries with a view to worldwide communism. I too wish we could run a potent candidate in every election in America. However, at our current level of popularity I fear we run candidates at the peril of gaining a reputation of being a party of impotent “also rans”. This can become an entrenched perception which is difficult to overcome. Still, at some point we must step up and fight for a leadership position but, it should be in a race where we can give a good account of ourselves and if not win, at least show strength. Let us choose our fights wisely.

Finally, one thing we must not do is allow ourselves to become divided. It’s good to have diversity of opinion and to debate it strongly and openly but when a decision has been made let us come together in solidarity and give it our full support. I believe that it is good that we can criticize our leaders, in fact it is downright healthy and an American tradition to do so. When we do, let it be constructively, offering solutions to our problems and offering no unnecessary offense to our comrades that bear the burden of leadership. The diversity of ideas within our party must not become a “war of ideas” such as exists between democrats and republicans and will be their downfall. We will win by being the party of diversity, ideas, flexibility, compassion, a balanced approach and solidarity.