By Arthur Shaw

On August 17, 2012, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Aug. 17 decided to convene a meeting of Foreign Ministers to discuss the situation between Ecuador and the UK.

The resolution, adopted with 23 votes in favor, 3 against, 5 abstentions and 3 absent, convenes the Foreign Ministers of the OAS member states to meet on Friday, August 24 at 11:00 EDT (16:00 GMT) at the headquarters of the organization in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting will be to “address the situation between Ecuador and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the inviolability of the diplomatic premises of Ecuador in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with international law, and to agree on appropriate measures to be adopted.”

The three renegade states that voted against convening the meeting included the USA, Canada, and Trinidad and Tobago.

OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza stressed to the Council that the resolution approved focuses on “the problem posed by the threat or warning made to Ecuador by the possibility of an intervention into its embassy in London.” “The central issue is not the right of asylum, is the inviolability of embassies,” said Secretary General Insulza, who recalled that last year the United Nations Security Council ruled “very strictly on the absolute immunity that diplomatic missions must have in all the countries of the world.”

“What is being proposed is that the Foreign Ministers of our organization address this subject and not the subject of asylum nor whether it should be granted to Mr. Julian Assange. That will be discussed between Great Britain and Ecuador, the issue that concerns us is the inviolability of diplomatic missions of all members of this organization, something that is of interest to all of us,” said the OAS Secretary General.

Lamentably, the issues of political asylum, free press, and proper extradition procedures will not be discussed at the Aug. 24 meeting. Ecuador, the country which requested the meeting, seems to want the discussion narrowed to the issue of the inviolability of diplomatic missions.

Ecuador recently granted diplomatic asylum to Julian Assange, a free press activist, who has been in the embassy of Ecuador in London since June 19, 2012. The UK regime threatens to break into the Ecuadoran Embassy and grab Assange.

During the OAS Council meeting, the Representatives of Ecuador, Argentina, Dominica (on behalf of CARICOM), the United States, Panama, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Canada, Paraguay, Chile and Costa Rica all spoke, as well as the Observers to the OAS from the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Note that Dominica spoke on behalf of CARICOM, an international organization in the Caribbean, to which Trinidad belongs. Dominica denounced the UK regime for the threat against the Ecuadoran Embassy. So, Trinidad is playing both sides. In Washington, DC, Trinidad sides with US imperialists. In the Caribbean, Trinidad sides with CARICOM.

UK is the closest ally of the US imperialists. So, the US imperialists don’t want disappoint the UK. But supporting the UK, in this case, humiliates US imperialists because it exposes the loss of US control over the OAS. At the abovementioned meeting, the US imperialists could only round up two states — Canada and Trinidad — to vote with the imperialists while Ecuador rounded up 23 states. At the upcoming Aug. 24 meeting, it is likely that the majority of the Council will approve a resolution which the US imperialists detest.

The imperialists have two choices — (1) support the OAS resolution which they detest, a show of weakness or (2) oppose or abstain which shows how isolated the imperialists are in their own “backyard.”

The government of Ecuador is a close ally of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela.

Via: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

By Zoltan Zigedy

The history of this young nation has known but a few transformational developments since its revolutionary birth: the Civil War primarily, but also the New Deal reforms and the broadening of civil rights in the latter half of the twentieth century. The first transformation, the destruction of slavery, was the first and only change that profoundly restructured property relations in the US.[i]

The New Deal, on the other hand, expanded the human rights manifesto beyond the eighteenth-century bourgeois deification of property and freedom of action, an expansion that nonetheless remains contested to this day with the continual erosion of the welfare state.

Where the New Deal proffered the additional universal rights to a job, to belong to a union, to food, etc.—what philosophers have come to call positive rights—the civil rights movements of the twentieth century expanded the notion of a citizen to include all those—women, former slaves– denied by the so-called founding fathers, the colonial elite.

Thus, the goal of establishing a bourgeois republic was not completed for nearly two centuries until the nominal full participation of women and African Americans was achieved with universal voting rights. Yet within two decades after the landmark voting rights legislation, any promise of popular and democratic expression had been decisively dashed by the powerfully persuasive role of money and media. The newer information and entertainment technologies afforded the rich and powerful an overwhelming counter to the creaky machinery of universal suffrage and the myth of voter autonomy. What the bourgeois republic gave in opportunity, the opinion-makers took back with their consensus factories.

Allergy to Theory

Without an understanding of our nation’s history, without theories that weave together events, without a broad and deep grasp of causes and effects, the past and the way forward are mystifying and disorienting. More importantly, without an over-arching theory that explains both the common and uncommon elements occurring in the course of US history, one can only despair at the future. Certainly no hope for altering that course can come without that understanding.

But searching for causes, making historical connections, and scrounging for general laws have seldom known popularity with our fellow citizens. Some, like Professor Richard Hofstadter, have attributed this allergy to theory to a long-standing anti-intellectualism. But the US overflows with intellectuals, both inside and outside of the universities. Pundits of every stripe dominate the daily background noise, the written word, and the sport of national politics; they may not be intellectuals to my liking, but they are intellectuals nonetheless.

No, the problem is an aversion to theory, an aversion born from both unique subjective and objective features of US history. To a great extent, the dynamism of the young nation – its continued expansion and shifting frontier, the influx of waves of immigrants, the broken links with the patterns of European development, the perception of unlimited opportunity, and a host of other “exceptional” features—gave rise to the creed of American Exceptionalism, a view that the US stands outside of the patterns of development shared by other nations. Put simply, the US is seen as making a new history apart from the old patterns; no theory is necessary to explain that which remains unsettled and indeterminate.
From this stance of unique, exceptional social, political, and economic development came adherence to the philosophical framework of pragmatism and empiricism—a concern for the practical and the immediacy of experience. In the US “theoretical” frame of reference, it is the individual, and not the family, neighborhood, work collective or any other social unit that stands at the center of the universe, a posture reinforced and made imperative by the rigors and discipline of an unfettered capitalism that trades on dissolving historically established social ties and identities.

Except on those rare occasions when Marxist or other collectivist theory-driven movements arise and intrude, our intellectuals celebrate the individual and eschew recognition of any laws of social, economic, and political development. Social life and its history are merely a swirl of sentiments, decisions, accidents and spontaneity, all guided by a quasi-religious sense of destiny.

An Example

A recent study circulating among progressives on the Internet demonstrates the poverty of this prevailing intellectual method in the US. Krishna Savani, a business professor at Columbia University, and Aneeta Rattan, a psychology professor at Stanford University, have authored a paper “explaining” the wide-spread, counter-intuitive acceptance of material inequality in the US. The paper’s title, while couched in the academic idiom, clearly states their conclusion: “A Choice Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality.” That is, the idea that outcomes are determined by choice and not circumstance, privilege, advantage, or prejudice trumps the indignity or sense of injustice people may have over material inequality. Thus, people are less likely to attend to material inequalities when they believe strongly that life’s outcomes are largely a matter of choosing wisely.

They conducted experiments, the results of which showed that:

…highlighting the concept of choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing
wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate the role of societal
factors in individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational
resources, and less likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help
resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate that the culturally valued concept of
choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.

The professors’ conclusions neither surprise nor satisfy. Opinion polls show that US respondents vastly overestimate their relative position in society; in one poll, nearly two out of five believed that they are or will be in the top 5% of wealth holders, a view that is patently irrational and impossible of fact. Other polls demonstrate that US citizens have a vastly distorted picture of wealth and income distribution in the US, an ignorance that also informs their perception and valuation of inequality. While choice may be one element in the conceptual framework that devalues social justice, there are many others, including deception and simple factual error.

The radical empiricism and theoretical meagerness of the Savani/Rattan study implies that high estimation of individual choices is the decisive factor in the reluctance of US citizens to tackle the explosively growing inequalities in the US. Though the authors may not have intended it, the study leaves the pessimistic impression that the worship of choice (the preference of weighing opportunity over outcome) is deeply and perhaps intractably rooted in the US character.
As an example of social science practiced in the US, the study is impeccable: the numbers are transparent, the statistics are significant, and the experiments are replicable. But as a basis for policy or of robust understanding, the study is frustratingly spare and unhelpful.[ii]

Most importantly, the study fails to answer the critical question: Would people really choose to place choice above other social values if they were fully informed and unbiased? Or is their embrace of the choice “mind-set” something foisted on them by tradition, peer pressure, media, or propaganda?

Choosing to Choose?

While millions of dollars and thousands of hours could be spent rigorously identifying the “mind-set” that allows citizens to shun policies that address wealth and income inequalities, such an effort would get us no closer to understanding how this mind-set came to be and how it can– if it can– be transformed.

But addressing these questions is not a career track for scholars looking for appointment or tenure at elite universities.

Since it would make no sense, all things being equal, for people to freely and knowingly prefer a value (freedom of choice) over other values (equality, for example) that are clearly in their and nearly everyone else’s best interest, we need a theory and not merely an experimental result to move forward. One such theory—the Marxist theory—invokes the notion of a ruling class with its own distinct and anti-majority interests. On such a theory, and in contrast with the study’s barren empiricism, most people elevate certain values above their own interests because still others, operating as a cohesive class, have the desire and means to impose their values upon the rest of us. They could and would, if necessary, impose their will through coercion, but they prefer to use persuasive mechanisms to achieve the appearance of consensus.

The Marxist theory takes it as axiomatic that the ruling class, enjoying a decided advantage in wealth and power, will fully exploit that advantage; it will exercise its wealth and power to market its own interests to those with conflicting interests. The ruling class addresses this project through the ownership of the means of mass persuasion and decisive control of the instruments of governance. Thus, for a Marxist, the monopoly of the media, the indirect, but decisive control of the educational system, and the dominance of political voices and the options they espouse allow the ruling class to plant, nourish, and harvest ideas among the masses, ideas that run counter to the interests of the vast majority. One such idea, among many others, is the notion that individual choice is threatened by any policy that promotes egalitarianism.

The “Consensus” Mechanism at Work

Since the end of the Second World War, the US ruling class has pressed its interests over all others by successfully raising the specter of Communism, in the first place, and the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism, today. Clearly, the anti-Communist hysteria was predictable as a gambit by the ruling class since Communists did indeed threaten to overthrow them. Subsequently, the success in portraying Communism as a threat to the nation, freedom, religion, and any other real or constructed value, allowed the ruling class to destroy any real domestic opposition and eviscerate the militant trade union movement. In a real sense, the left and the trade union movement in the US has yet to recover from this thorough and successful project of mass persuasion. And since the threat of Communism has lost its credibility at this time, the US ruling class saw the necessity of creating a new bogeyman in Islam.

Consolidation and monopolization of the mass media has enabled the deceptions and fantasies that were the building blocks of a false and alien world view shared by the majority of citizens even against their own interests. As new technologies arose and as they were more and more absorbed by giant monopoly media corporations, the bounds of independent thought grew narrower. Even non-conformity became a calculated and manipulated phenomenon. A casual examination of network news, newspapers, and news services shows an uncanny similarity in coverage and point of view. A closer examination shows that the common point of view nearly always coincides with the point of view of elements of the ruling class; that is, whatever diversity is found in the national dialogue simply reflects the diversity of opinion among the ruling elite.

By purchasing the two contesting major parties, the ruling class decidedly controls the electoral arena in the US. It is not necessary for the rulers to send instructions. By merely funding the lobbying effort and shifting campaign contributions, the US ruling class determines the limits of discussion and debate. As a result, a spectacle of largely — but not exclusively– white guys with professional degrees, expensive haircuts, near identical suits and ties, and flag pins gather to decide the direction of the country. Few see the bizarreness of this dance of puppets and even fewer recognize the puppeteers who pull their strings.

Theory and Change

The theory advocated here — the Marxist theory — has a long history back to its origins in the mid-nineteenth century. The fact that it captures and explains the behavior of many capitalist nations over many years bolsters its scientific credentials. The fact that it accounts for wars, economic crises, oppressive governmental acts, and massive transfers of wealth to the wealthiest – all counter to the interests of the vast majority—attests to its robust explanatory value. Those who have no theory have no explanation or answer for why a tiny minority can shape the course of history without regard to the interests of the majority and without resorting to coercion.

Rather than fueling pessimism and fatalism, the Marxist theory offers a way out. The profound economic crisis that surfaced in 2008 and continues unabated has damaged, disabled, or slowed the consensus mechanisms that have been operating smoothly and effectively for many, many decades; the mythologies created by these mechanisms are crumbling; and the tight grip on the “mind-set” of the US population is loosening.

While the political expression of these changes is retarded by habit, peer pressure, and sheer, naked opportunism, the underlying foundation of conventional political behavior is eroding. Consider the following:

●All of the institutions of governance are at all-time lows in credibility and confidence according to numerous opinion polls.
●Similarly, sectors of monopoly capital are viewed extremely negatively, especially the financial industry.
●Likewise, opinion polls show new lows for the credibility of the mass media.
●The idea that every generation of US citizens does better than its forebears is shattered. This has been a pillar of American Exceptionalism.
●The axiom that education is the key driver of occupational success is crushed in a vice of fewer and fewer high paying jobs and escalating educational costs.
●Income and wealth inequality is too apparent to hide or dismiss.
●Several generations of young people have moved beyond the pollution of anti-Communism. The socialist option now has credible showings in opinion polls, especially among young people.

Though these seeds of discontent are now deeply planted in the national “mind-set,” the ruling class works feverishly to counter their growth. Nonetheless, they will burst through. But we have no guarantee that the discontent will not be deformed by false populism, appeals to nativism, and personality cults. Those waiting for spontaneous risings may be shocked by what they get.

Instead, the moment is ripe for intensifying the battle of ideas. When politics lags behind the national sentiment, there is no better time to engage the ruling class and the false prophets. Regardless of how the forthcoming election turns out, this battle for shaping a genuine national interest remains. If we are serious about transformational change, we must follow the path of the abolitionists who came before. We must show the same persistence and zeal for our cause and not be deterred by electoral sideshows, compromise, and maneuvering.

For a left largely irrelevant to the outcome of the coming US elections, the moment to inject new ideas—anti-capitalism, socialism—is now.

The pitchforks will eventually come out; it’s only a matter of who they skewer.

i This is not to, in any way, discount the most important new world re-ordering of property relations: the wholesale expropriation of the property of the native inhabitants.
ii Despite their “rigor,” they expose their own theoretical bias by contrasting acceptance of choice over taxing the rich to pay down the deficit. It never occurs to them that paying down the deficit might be viewed as a bogus reason to re-frame taxation!

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

By James Thompson

As many people know, I have been “dropped” from membership in the CPUSA. This article will present the exact exchange between me and various characters in the national leadership who have corresponded with me over this issue. It is important for the working class to be well aware of how their party treats their membership. Through education, this author hopes that an informed working class will fight for control of the party that historically has best represented them in this country and around the world.

Here is a letter sent to Sam Webb and Jarvis Tyner as well as a number of party officials requesting an appeal of the decision to “drop” me.

This letter was sent on 7/29/12 at 8:10pm.

Dear Sam and Jarvis –

I would like to appeal the decision by the National Board to “drop” me from membership in the CPUSA. I want to exercise my right under Article VII, Section 6 of the CPUSA constitution to appeal the decision to “drop” me from membership to the National Committee.

This letter is being submitted not just on my behalf, but on behalf of the members of the original Houston club who have discussed it at a club meeting and agreed that I submit it as well. I came to the realization that I have a duty to defend myself as well as the members of our club who have elected me through democratic process to be their club chair.

In the July 8, 2012 e-mail from John Bachtell to me, the party informed me that I have been “dropped from membership.” Here is the exact letter:

“Hi Pat,

We are sending this email after numerous attempts to speak with you in person and by phone, without response.

It is clear your continued actions are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party USA. Therefore, based on a discussion in the National Board you have been dropped from membership.

Please turn over all Party records and finances in your possession to the newly organized and officially recognized Houston club.
If you have any questions about this action please feel free to call me at ……..
John Bachtell
CPUSA
July 8, 2012”

I don’t have the power to hand over the money or anything else without the democratic consent of the club. The original Houston club voted on July 4, 2012 not to hand over the money or anything else to the new club by 9-0.

By this letter I appeal to the National Committee to reverse this decision to drop me. There have been no charges made against me, only that my “continued actions are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party USA.”

What “continued actions?” The national leadership has not asked me to discontinue any actions.

I assert that the CPUSA constitution has been egregiously violated by this letter to me from John Bachtell.

Bachtell’s e-mail letter does not adhere to the provisions of the Party’s Constitution under Article VII (Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals). His e-mail violates Section 1 since I have never been informed of the charges against me. Section 3 was violated in that no charges were made against me to the original Houston club. Also, no trial committee was elected and did not hear charges, or make recommendations. Section 4 was violated in that I was never notified of the charges against me. Section 5 was violated in that there was no trial committee and no votes were taken. Disciplinary measures have not been reported to the original Houston club, i.e. the club of which I am not only a member, but am the duly democratically elected club chair. There has not been an automatic review of my expulsion (let’s not mince words since that is what happened) by any bodies within the CPUSA.

When I heard in mid June that there was a possibility that Bachtell might visit Houston, I sent an email to him (June 13th) inviting him to meet with the Houston Club. I received no reply to my email and heard nothing from the Texas district leadership. My wife and I left for a pre-scheduled weekend getaway in San Antonio on Friday June 29th with a plan to return on Sunday evening July 1st. I had a prearranged conference call scheduled for the evening of July 1st. Monday, July 2nd was a workday for me (and for many others). I had a full schedule of appointments. Bachtell’s first email to me came on Sat., June 30th after he had already arrived in Houston.

Why was it not possible for him to correspond with me to work out his schedule in Houston before he arrived either by e-mail or phone? Am I being “dropped” because I was out of town or at work and could not make a meeting?

Here is the exact sequence of e-mails between John Bachtell and me leading up to the letter dropping me from membership. First you will note my e-mail to John Bachtell inviting him to meet with the whole Houston club issued on June 13. I sent this e-mail because I was hearing rumors that they were coming to Houston. I had not received any official notice from district or national leadership about the visit at this point.

“On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
Dear John –

We have talked over the phone in the past.

We understand that you are likely to come to Houston in the near future. We certainly would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our points of common ground as well as differences. Some members have already expressed interest in such a meeting. We want to work together to build maximum unity and resolve differences in a mutually respectful and beneficial manner.

However, we don’t know the details of your visit. Please let us know if you would be available to meet with us and if you need us to make arrangements for a meeting place, etc.

We look forward to welcoming you to Houston.

Peace & solidarity
Pat Thompson
Club Chair, Houston Communist Party”

I received no response to my e-mail until June 30 at which time I was vacationing in San Antonio with my wife. Here is the first response I received from John Bachtell:

“From: John Bachtell
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:21:50 -0500
To: Paul Subject: Re: Meeting in Houston
Hi Pat,

As you know Juan and I are in Houston. We along with Bernard would like to meet with you while we are here. We propose 7 pm Sunday at the Kim Son restaurant (downtown at 59th and Jefferson)

Please let me know if this is good for you.
Sincerely,
John”

I responded with the following e-mail:

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM, wrote:
My wife and I are in San Antonio now. I asked Bernard about the meeting last Sunday at our monthly meeting and he said he didn’t know anything about the meeting with you and Juan.

We will return to Houston tomorrow, however I have scheduled a phone call with a Union brother from NY at the time you propose.

I would be happy to meet with you the next time you are in Houston. Please show us the courtesy of giving us advance notice so that we can gather the whole club together to meet with you. We feel that informing us at the last minute is disrespectful.

Pat ”

John responded to my e-mail at 10:54am on July 1, 2012 with the following e-mail:

“Hi Pat,

Thanks for returning my email. We have also made several attempts to reach you by phone and have left messages to schedule a meeting with you. We have not gotten a response yet.

We would be happy to meet with you anytime and anyplace at your convenience Sunday or Monday until midafternoon when we depart.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
John Bachtell”

As you can see from the sequence of e-mails, Bachtell proposed a meeting with me individually at the end of their visit. Since I had not been given the opportunity to plan this meeting, it was impossible for me to meet with John and Juan at the end of their visit. You can see from my e-mail that I offered to meet with them in the future if they give me the opportunity to plan and schedule a meeting with them. This offer still stands.

I should point out that I have been a loyal member of the CPUSA since 2003. I have written hundreds of articles for the People’s Weekly World and People’s World using the names James Thompson and Paul Hill. I attended the 2005 convention in Chicago as a delegate from Texas and wrote the article covering the convention’s solidarity action with the staff on strike at the Congress Hotel. I have attended party meetings in St. Louis on African American equality. I have attended state conventions in Texas in Austin. I have attended district meetings in El Paso and in Oakland. I participated in the march on Wall Street and marched alongside Jarvis Tyner and Libero della Piana in 2009. In fact, I made up the slogans and hand printed the posters for that march. I attended the march on Washington for Jobs on 10/2/10 and helped Bill Davis and others organize the party presence there. I attended an anti-war march in Washington, DC and marched with the party contingent, distributed PWWs and helped set up the party table and helped clean up. I wrote the first article for the PWW after Hurricane Katrina covering the survivors in Houston. I wrote many articles for the PWW that were printed on the front page including an article on an AFL-CIO action in Little Rock, Arkansas. I wrote many centerpiece articles, including one on waterboarding and one on immigration and detention of undocumented workers. I covered the BP disaster in Texas City in which many workers died. I covered the Essence music festival in Houston and went to an anti-war march in New Orleans where I distributed PWWs and wrote up the event for the paper. I covered two AFL-CIO Martin Luther King day celebrations, one in Houston and one in New Orleans. Most recently, I have launched a campaign to overturn the anti-Communist law in Texas which prohibits Communists from running for public office or holding state government jobs. All of this has been done on a volunteer basis and I have received no remuneration from the party for any of these activities. I have participated in fundraising for Democratic Party candidates for U.S. House of Representatives candidates in Houston and informed Jarvis Tyner and district leadership of this effort. I have participated in the Labor Neighbor program through the AFL-CIO and have been a regular supporter of the Justice for Janitors effort by SEIU in Houston. I have written numerous articles supporting both. I attended the Jobs with Justice conference in Providence, R.I. with Texas district leadership. I attended the Texas state AFL-CIO convention in Corpus Christi when state district leadership could not due to illness. I attended and voted for the endorsement of Single Payer Health Care which was ultimately endorsed by the Texas state AFL-CIO convention in Corpus Christi. I have worked for Democratic Party candidates dating back to George McGovern. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention for Jesse Jackson in 1988. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention in 2004 for Dennis Kucinich. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention in Fort Worth and attended with Texas CPUSA district leadership.

It is not easy living in Houston, home of George H. W. Bush and Tom DeLay (I worked very hard on the AFL-CIO effort to replace Tom DeLay with Democrat Nick Lampson, which was successful). It is even more difficult to organize a CPUSA club here in the deep South. In fact, from 2003 until 2009, there was no Houston club of the CPUSA. I changed that and built a vibrant, thriving club.

Some comrades have asked the question, “Why can’t there be two CPUSA clubs in the fourth largest city in the United States of America?” Our original club recognizes the right of the new club to form and we wish it every success in building the party. On the other hand, the new club and the national leadership have attempted to impose the dissolution of our original club on us. Our club is perplexed by these maneuvers and we don’t understand how dropping my membership and dissolving our club will help build the party and how this will help build working class power.

We are requesting clarification and are appealing the decision to “drop” me from membership in the CPUSA.

I am requesting that copies of this letter be distributed to all members of the national committee as well as the national board.
Peace & solidarity
James Thompson
Club Chair, Houston Communist Party
PHill1917@comcast.net

To my knowledge, the CPUSA leadership ignored my request that my letter be distributed to all the members of the National Committee. Instead, they sent this letter to the National Committee:

“To: National Committee
From: National Board
Dear comrades,
Many of you are aware we have been dealing with a destructive factional situation in the Houston club for the past several years. National and district leaders have made many attempts to resolve this situation to no avail.

The club leader, Pat Thompson, had established a website which consistently carried out anti-Party attacks on our democratically arrived at policy, national convention decisions and personal attacks on our leaders.
We had repeatedly asked Thompson to cease the public attacks and remove anti-Party material from the website. Because he refused to comply, the CPUSA issued a statement late last year which publicly disassociated the Party from the website.
Thompson had also reposted numerous articles from the Marxism-Leninism Today website, another source of anti-party attacks generated by former members.

Additionally, Thompson invited a former leader of the CPUSA to a club meeting with the expressed purpose of aligning the club with an opposition network and, failing to change Party policy, to form a new communist party.

This May we received a communication from members of the club seeking intervention. They explained they were not in agreement with the attacks on the Party and had been waging a struggle against the factionalism. They had hoped to solve the problem internally but this proved not possible. The factional activity led to a paralysis of the club and the acrimony drove away members.

The National Board with the agreement of the TX district leadership, asked John Bachtell and Juan Lopez to visit Houston at the end of June with the purpose of responding to the request for help, including establishing a new party club if necessary and meeting with as many members, new and old, as possible.
John and Juan made repeated efforts to meet with Thompson, but were rebuffed. They concluded Thompson was unwilling to meet.

They held numerous meetings with members and friends and assisted in the establishment of a new club of comrades who support the party policy and seek to be integrated into the national and state organization. As it turned out over 70% of the membership supported this direction.

Since its establishment the new club has fully immersed itself in activity, including the rolling janitor’s strike turning Houston upside down, built a website and Facebook page, begun fundraising and building a treasury, written several articles for the People’s World, sought to renew its mass ties and continued outreach to new members.

On July 5, Juan and John reported the results of their visit to the National Board. The NB decided to officially recognize the new club as the sole representative of the Communist Party in Houston and drop Pat Thompson from Party membership for his egregious acts of factionalism in open violation of the CPUSA constitution.

The NB informed Thompson of this in a letter. Thompson appealed the decision on the basis that he had not been informed of the charges and asked for a hearing. Meanwhile, the website he operates that claims to speak for the Communist Party of Houston continued to attack Party policy and leaders.

The National Board, with the agreement of the Texas District leadership adopted the following;

To allow someone so openly and clearly anti-party to exploit the democratic provisions in our constitution to continue to attack the Party and embroil us in a prolonged internal dispute is not in the interests of the Party.
Given Thompson’s history, proceedings would no doubt be trumpeted widely on the Internet and social media. To publicly engage the Party in a fight that will consume vast amounts of time and energy would only serve his interests and anti-Party factional elements around him.

Therefore, on August 2 the National Board rejected Thompson’s appeal.”

John Bachtell “just followed orders” when he sent a letter to me on 8/9/12 rejecting my appeal of the decision to “drop me”:

Hi Pat,

We received your appeal of the July 5 decision to drop you from membership in the Communist Party USA for egregious acts of factionalism in violation of the CPUSA constitution.

Even after your appeal, the website that you operate, which claims to speak for the Communist Party of Houston, continues to attack Party policy and leaders.

To allow anyone so openly and clearly anti-party to exploit the democratic provisions in our constitution to continue to attack the Party and embroil us in a prolonged internal dispute is not in our interests.

On August 2, the National Board, vested according to the CPUSA constitution with the authority to act for the good and welfare of the entire Party, rejected your appeal.

National Board
CPUSA”

Comrades, brothers and sisters, people of the working class:

It is time that we stand up for our interests and fight for a better world, not for better imperialism. Don’t sit at home, do nothing and “just follow orders”. It is time for working people to fight for their party, the CPUSA.

Although I have been expelled from the party, I still consider myself to be a member of the party. I am just one person. The people on the National Board seem to have been elevated to a superior position as compared with the National Committee and certainly the National Convention. The National Board is made up of just a few people. If you add the entire National Board and myself together it does not make up even a recognizable fraction of the working people in the USA. It is time for working people to step up to the plate and demand respect for the membership of our party and demand respect for the working people from our party, the CPUSA.

Furthermore, the Houston club (original) rejects its expulsion and attempt at dissolution by the national leadership of the CPUSA. It rejects the expulsion of its duly democratically elected chair. It demands that the leadership of the CPUSA stop its unconstitutional activity and return to the proud tradition of the party in opposing imperialism and anti-working class activities in all its forms. We must fight for the working class, not against it.

Comrades, brothers and sisters, people of the working class:

Don’t tell yourselves, “it can’t happen here.” If it can happen in Houston, it can happen anywhere.

Stand up for your rights! Unite and fight for a better world through socialism and democracy! “Don’t cling so hard to your possessions, because you’ve got nothing if you’ve got no rights!”

PHill1917@comcast.net

By Darrell Rankin, People’s Voice, March 1, 2012

Excerpt from: http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/mar-1-2012.pdf  (page 4)

The U.N. General Assembly and Syria

Imperialism’s lies are having some effect on world opinion, or the February 16 non-binding vote in the U.N. General Assembly would not have been so weighted against the Syrian people. The vote was 137 in favour, 12 opposed, 17 abstentions and 27 not voting. The Palestinian territories could not vote.

Why would a large majority of states vote in support of Saudi Arabia’s resolution urging, among other demands, that the Syrian government withdraw its military from urban areas? This demand alone shows how unbalanced the resolution was in favour of one side of the civil conflict, because the armed insurgent groups remaining in urban areas could then form a provisional government and invite foreign military forces into the country.

There have been few similar occasions when imperialism has been able to lead its former colonies to vote for solutions that undermine their sovereignty, like when most voted in 1994 to form and join the World Trade Organization, soon after the setbacks to socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Capitalism’s global problems and imperialism’s efforts to erase national sovereignty through economic diktat and war have since produced a growing and uneven reappraisal. Adding more wars will make the situation worse.

The majority support of world governments for the unbalanced resolution on Syria (71%) helps hide the fact that 33.4% of the world’s people live in the 56 countries that did not support the resolution. About 24.2% of the world’s people live in the 12 countries that opposed the resolution (6% of 193 member states of the United Nations).

It is important to understand why several important countries spoke against a war of forced regime change in Syria, though they supported the resolution – either through conscious betrayal or because of promises and threats like those used to create the U.S.-led “coalition of the willing” in 2003 that occupied Iraq.

India: “Explaining India’s vote on the UNGA resolution, India’s Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri underlined that while India condemned violence, it opposed any use of force by a third country and advocated a Syrian-led political reconciliation.” (Hindustan Times, February 17, 2012)

Pakistan: “The representative of Pakistan said he supported the Arab League position and had voted in favour of the resolution, but condemned the use of violence on all sides. An immediate end to violence and killing, as well as a peaceful resolution were aims upon which all Member States agreed. In that light, Pakistan had been stressing the need for consensus… noting that there could have been better efforts… to fully assure delegations that there was no intention to carry out a hostile intervention. Reiterating his call for the Syrian people to be respected, he said they must be allowed to resolve their crisis, and he reaffirmed the absolute importance of respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all States” (U.N. Public Information Department, Feb. 16, 2012.)

Ukraine: “Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had issued a statement last week in which it had expressed grave concern at the escalating violence in Syria, “which threatens to grow into a full-scale civil war, with unpredictable consequences in the entire Middle East”. Ukraine urged all parties in Syria to cease the violence and begin a dialogue, with the aim of finding a mutually acceptable and effective way to resolve their differences.” (Same source.)

So why is the expressed view of India, Pakistan and Ukraine at complete odds with the actual, unbalanced and pro-war intention of Saudi Arabia’s resolution? The comments of these diplomats are a deception for the people of their countries who comprise 21.2% of the world’s total; they are proclaiming “peace” but voting for war.

World opinion does not support a war of regime change and occupation against Syria. Some governments are being forced to cover their tracks.

Emboldened by the UN vote, imperialism is moving quickly to stoke violent regime change and launch new, destabilizing adventures. The danger has only increased.

The Iranian people have every reason to fear they will be imperialism’s next target. It is urgent to unite Labour and all other popular movements to oppose the growing war against Syria.

Check out this article:

http://coreyrobin.com/2012/07/11/kissinger-allende-more-dangerous-than-castro/

Excerpt: Center-right Dems are the most dangerous group because they enjoy the “halo effect” that their party earned from creating Social
Security and building it into the system it is today. They wouldn’t do anything to damage it, would they? Actually, they have, and they do –
as you note, every president since Carter has tried to cut Social Security. That includes Barack Obama, who tried to cut a deal with Speaker John Boehner last summer that would have cut benefits over time.

Read more: http://retirementrevised.com/money/qa-eric-laursen-on-the-peoples-pension

Guido Liguori, a philosopher specializing in Antonio Gramsci, is the author of Qui a tué le Parti communiste italien? [Who Killed the Italian Communist Party?] Instead of just focusing on the debates of 1989, he works to uncover the intellectual and philosophical roots of the decision to dissolve the Italian Communist Party, the most influential in the West, to create the Democratic Party of the Left.

Read more: http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article2100