Talk:Communist Party of the United States of America/Archive: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:15, 29 July 2023

Aren't they, like, reformists? 🤔 — Comrade FelipeForte ^(talk) 16:59, 23 November 2020 (-03)

Yeah they arguably are. They support the Democrats. They obviously say that they aren't though. --— Comrade J2050 ^(talk) 17:31, 23 November 2020 (-03)

Perhaps our article could reflect this information? I'll make the change. Hopefully it won't stir up any issues, and if it does, we have the right place to resolve them — Supreme Comrade Felipe Forte ^(talk) 07:35, 24 November 2020 (-03)

Material For Potential Page Additions[edit source]

A couple socdems wrote this detailing the history up to 1952: https://archive.org/details/cpusahowecoser

Klehr and Haynes wrote The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself, a brief history from the party's founding to 1991 Title: The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself

Opportunism and Electioneering[edit source]

I disagree that participation in existing structures as an aspect of struggle and the aspiration of a peaceful revolution are proof of reformism or opportunism. There is of course the tendency not to put up one's own candidates as much as possible (which is incorrect), and decentralization that contributes to articles on their own website being not in line with principles (which should be more strictly applied), but I don't think the party is beyond saving. The most common and correct criticism is a formulaic demand to always vote for Democrats as the lesser evil in national elections rather than performing a creative assessment of conditions which lays out the times when it is strategic to vote for Democrats to advance Communist interests, and when it is strategic not to. Overall they have the problem of a lot of Western parties of neglecting to test new approaches and allowing too much leeway in adherence to the party line, with the sloganeering around the Constitution being in my view a policy comparable to the respect demanded of traditional leaders in order to win the people over. Long tangent, just saying I don't want to just remove the first two citations because that could be seen as hostile, so instead I'll just note my feelings here and hope we can come to an agreement.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Yeah they arguably are. They support the Democrats. They obviously say that they aren't though. --— ''Comrade [[User:J2050|J2050]]'' <sup>([[User talk:J2050|talk]])</sup> 17:31, 23 November 2020 (-03)
+:Perhaps our article could reflect this information? I'll make the change. Hopefully it won't stir up any issues, and if it does, we have the right place to resolve them — ''Supreme Comrade [[User:FelipeForte|Felipe Forte]]'' <sup>([[User talk:FelipeForte|talk]])</sup> 07:35, 24 November 2020 (-03)
+== Material For Potential Page Additions ==
+A couple socdems wrote this detailing the history up to 1952:
+https://archive.org/details/cpusahowecoser
+Klehr and Haynes wrote The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself, a brief history from the party's founding to 1991
+Title: The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself
+== Opportunism and Electioneering ==
+I disagree that participation in existing structures as an aspect of struggle and the aspiration of a peaceful revolution are proof of reformism or opportunism. There is of course the tendency not to put up one's own candidates as much as possible (which is incorrect), and decentralization that contributes to articles on their own website being not in line with principles (which should be more strictly applied), but I don't think the party is beyond saving. The most common and correct criticism is a formulaic demand to always vote for Democrats as the lesser evil in national elections rather than performing a creative assessment of conditions which lays out the times when it is strategic to vote for Democrats to advance Communist interests, and when it is strategic not to. Overall they have the problem of a lot of Western parties of neglecting to test new approaches and allowing too much leeway in adherence to the party line, with the sloganeering around the Constitution being in my view a policy comparable to the respect demanded of traditional leaders in order to win the people over. Long tangent, just saying I don't want to just remove the first two citations because that could be seen as hostile, so instead I'll just note my feelings here and hope we can come to an agreement.