Tuesday, March 30, 2010

A Typical Webb Follower.

Faithful followers of the revisionist Sam Webb are all too ready to spew their vile against those that dare to disagree with their "Great Leader".

In a comment to my last post - an anonymous toady of Webb wrote:

"I agree, perhaps Sam Webb, who has been doing concrete work to run the party, should spend some time to read about the writings of Comrade Dimitrov. And perhaps you should go out and do some REAL work, instead of thinking that you can run the country by reading about Comrade Dimitrov's ideology alone. Of course Comrade Dimitrov did not advocate joining the fascists to defeat them, instead he had ACTUAL plans to defeat them in action by working with other allies, and certainly not by asking people to sit at home and read books about other comrades.

By the way....when was the last time you attended a party club meeting, comrade? Bring up the criticisms or comments in the proper party channels instead of an anonymous blog."

See you at the convention....right??

Well, this anonymous Webb toady knows nothing about the work I do. I am extremely active in several organisations here in Erie, as well as WORKING 10 hours a day. I average 4 hours of sleep per night. I doubt that my anonymous "comrade" can say the same.

I do read, and am proud to say that I read as much, and as often, as I can. However, I do far more than just read about things. I work with the homeless, with a local battered women's shelter, with the anti-racism initiative of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center, with the local Islamic understanding organisation, and etc... I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.

Georgi Dimitrov did not ally himself with the allies of the fascists. Webb wishes to join with the democrats, not realising (or caring) that the democrats are just as bad as the republicans. To advocate joining with the democrats to defeat the ultra-right is akin to joining Mussolini to defeat Hitler! You can't stop something that is part and parcel of the system, by joining with something else that is part and parcel of the same system!

I am not a (C)PUSA member, nor do I any longer have the desire to be one. To assume that I am some lax member that is "speaking out of turn", is quiet unwarranted. To go through "proper party channels" would not really work, would it? I choose to express my thought via a blog - as is my right. I have no desire to entangle myself with revisionists, and no desire to attend their watered down, anti-Communist, meetings.

Grow up, educate yourselves, and, most importantly, question the motives of your "Great Leader". He's leading you astray.

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Shame of the CPUSA

This will be a very short post.

I am deeply ashamed to see what has become of the CPUSA - a once proud Communist organisation. Every day I read something which confirms that it has abandoned Socialism, and has embraced an imperialist (democrat) agenda topped off with a generous sprinkling of Obama worship.

A new article in Political Affairs Magazine, available here, suggests that the current trends in the CPUSA are traditionally Communist. The author states, for instance, that: "I do not think the current strategic policy of the party really forsakes any of our traditional values..." This author knows nothing about Marxist-Leninist values if he believes that the current platform of the CPUSA is traditional.

And: "Instead of laying the blame for the party's slow growth at the foot of our strategic policy, perhaps we should instead question whether our failure to significantly grow could be related to the fact that the party is still seen by many in the broader left and especially among the general public as out-of-date in both its traditional terminology and yes, even its name." So, here the author suggests that it is the name of the party that is the problem. Well, I agree. The CPUSA can no longer be properly called Communist, as it has forsaken Communism. Perhaps a better name would be the Democratic Party - the Sam Webb led (C)PUSA doesn't seem to be any different than the Democrats - so why not just dissolve and join them?

A third point the author makes: "If the policy of defeating the ultra-right was correct in the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2008, how can it not be just as correct now that we are in a moment of transition toward a time when we can more forcefully go on the offensive?" Clearly, the ultra-right has not been defeated. Since the right is an intregal part of the system, and since the Democrats are part of that system, how can joining with the Democrats help to "defeat" the ultra-right? The Democrats, and their current demi-god Obama, are just as capitalist and imperialist as the worst of the ultra-right, and supporting them will not achieve anything but the strengthening of American imperialism.

When Georgi Dimitrov formulated the idea of uniting against fascism - he was reacting to a violent spectre that was extending its tentacles into every part of Europe. The difference? Comrade Dimitrov DID NOT advocating joining with the fascists in order to defeat them!

The (C)PUSA leadership (Sam Webb in particular) needs to read the writings of Comrade Dimitrov to learn what it really means to fight the ultra-right. Bowing down before the enemy is not the way to achieve success.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

More CPUSA Revisionism

In an article in the CPUSA magazine Political Affairs (available here), John Case argues that the capitalist backtracking of Deng Xiaoping was necessary. What?

He goes on to say:

"I side with Gorbachev, for example, who claimed that had it not been for the Russian people's disgust and contempt for Reagan's insulting and hostile actions toward the Soviet Union, the defective aspects of that system would have collapsed 10 years BEFORE it actually did."

Well, to side with Gorbachev in anything is to admit that you are a revisionist. Gorbachev, instead of trying to stabilize the Soviet government - simply let it collapse. Raisa Gorbachev said in her book, "I Hope", that neither she, nor her husband were ever really Marxist, and clearly, they were not! Faced with a Soviet Union that had been mangled since Khrushchev, Gorbachev did nothing but institute capitalist "reforms".

Obviously, there is no way to determine when something might have collapsed, as Case and Gorbachev did. The idea that mere insults from a foreign leader would cause people to cling to a "defective system" is ridiculous. The reality of the situation is that revisionism was the cause of the demise of the Soviet Union.

Case goes on to praise China as if he were fawning over a movie star, clearly showing that, for those influenced by samwebbism, capitalism is fine - as long as there is some token mention of Socialism. Read the CPUSA website to see their stance: "We are against capitalism." They are? Then how can they claim that capitalism in China is okay, simply because the Chinese people are becoming wealthier? Capitalism is okay if it makes you rich?

The CPUSA has lost its claim to being Communist. The leadership of (C)PUSA are nothing but revisionists that see no problem with capitalism - despite their claims to the contrary - and shamelessly promote that to their membership.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010


It is disturbing to read the platform of the Webb led CPUSA, even after having read it several times in the past. The CPUSA has degenerated into a social-democrat type organisation that has as its main priority the defeat of the "ultra-right". In fact, in "The Road to Socialism USA", available here, it states:

"This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party, left and progressive independents who recognize the danger the ultra-right poses, and all social movements on the major issues of our day. This all-peoples front should strive to, and be able to, attract many who voted Republican in the past."

It is quite clear that the Webb led CPUSA is in the pocket of the imperialist government of the U.S. They have chosen collaboration over Revolution, imperialism over the Working Class, capitalism over Communism, and they are trying to convince the impressionable that this is correct Marxist-Leninist strategy.

What Sam Webb fails to realise is that the Democratic Party is just as capitalist, just as imperialist, as the Republicans. The Democrats may hide their agenda in labour-friendly terms, but they are the same as the worst of the Republicans. Some may remember how almost every Democratic senator voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq. After it became clear that the invasion was based on lies, most of them backtracked slightly -though none of them admitted that the invasion was wrong- and began pushing for our withdrawal. Today, Iraq is barely mentioned, and all of our focus is on Afghanistan (which some in the CPUSA seem to be okay with on the grounds that it it for "humanitarian" reasons that we are there. "Humanitarian" imperialism is imperialism, and is just as destructive).

Besides, when was the last time you saw a poor Democrat politician (at least on the national level)? The Democrats that you see in the Senate are capitalists through and through, and would hotly denounce any hint of joining with the Communists. Remember how Obama reacted to be called a Socialist? To him it was a dirty word.

Collaboration with the Democrats is unacceptable, and for Sam Webb to push such a union makes him a traitor to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Softening the Revolutionary nature of Communism will not achieve anything but the ultimate disintegration of the movement.

We need to return to the core principles of Marxism-Leninism, and denounce those who would subvert those principles for their own political ends.

Here is to removing Sam Webb, and all his cohorts, from the leadership of the CPUSA!

Friday, March 5, 2010


Marxism-Leninism is more than a political ideology. It is a world view that can be applied in any given situation. Unlike American style "democratic" republicanism, which has very few real world applications, Marxism-Leninism can be applied to economics, sociology, politics, psychology, philosophy, aesthetics, and to the very real issues that we all face on a daily basis.

The philosophy of the United States is one of wealth and power. The working class rarely figure into the considerations of the American Big Government - except when it comes to the money they want from us. As an example, the Democrats are still attempting to push their health care reform, even though it is now pretty clear that it will not happen. Yet, not too long ago, the Democrats were filibuster proof. They could have had health care reform passed without Republican interference, but they were torpedoed by members of the Democratic party that were seeking special benefits for their own states! Even now, they could push through through health care reform with a simple majority - but they refuse to use that, as well. It should be clear that the Democrats care no more for the working class than the Republicans do. The bottom line is the dollar.

Obviously the Republicans do not want health care reform. Why? Because too many of their friends make money off the system the way it is now.

Both parties seem to ignore rising costs when minimum wage legislation come up. My first job was in 1991. At that time, I was earning three dollars and 45 cents an hour. The minimum wage in 2009 was seven dollars and 25 cents. So, in 18 years, the minimum wage rose only three dollars and 80 cents! How many times in 18 years have the U.S. Senate given themselves raises? The answer is, a lot. Actually, I couldn't find an accurate number, but in 2009, during the worst days of the financial crisis, they received a 4,700 dollar pay raise, per member! Financial disclosure forms released by the nation's 100 senators show there are at least 40 millionaires among them -- 22 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of the 100, only 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000. What is wrong with this picture?

There are two philosophies at work in this country - the millionaires club of the U.S. government, and the "struggling to get by" club that the working class are forced to belong to. So, why don't we do something about it? Why don't we cut their salary? Why don't we evict them from their palaces? Why don't we use the power we have to make things better for everyone? It is, simply, a deep seated fear that the capitalist masters have instilled into the working class since the beginning of time. They have us believing that we need them, and that there would be nothing without them. We buy into the lies - the "American Dream", "Work Harder And You'll Make It!", "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You...:, and etc...

Marxism-Leninism does not have this fear at its core. It is, in essence, a philosophy which states - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Lenin wrote that labour should be performed for the common good, for the benefit of society, and not for some material reward. Society would provide for us, as we would help to provide for society. Will this be a life with no leisure, no fun, no color, a grey world of automatons? No, it will be a life where we will have more opportunities to better ourselves, and society, because we will not be chained by the necessity to constantly work to pay for the things that society should provide, and we will not be forced to pay for millionaire "representatives" that have no interest in the people they "represent".

Marxism-Leninism, Communism, is about real freedom, and not he imaginary freedom offered by the American capitalists.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Communism: Success or Failure?

Communism has not failed as an ideology or a movement. I would assert that there has been no legitimate Communist nation in the world since the death of Comrade Lenin, and that, had Comrade Lenin survived, Communism would not now be seen as a failed system.

Sadly, for the world, Comrade Lenin died before he had a chance to shape the Soviet Union into a truly Marxist-Leninist union. His death paved the way for the leadership of Comrade Stalin which, though successful in a number of ways, ultimately failed to produce the hoped for results. The moment Comrade Stalin died, the anti-Marxist-Leninist forces under the leadership of Krushchev were quickly able to denounce Comrade Stalin, and undo everything he attempted to accomplish. By the time Comrade Brezhnev came to power, it was too late to go back.

Mao Tse-tung may have been a Communist in his youth, but once he assumed power he quickly showed his true - imperialist - agenda. One of his first acts was the invasion of Tibet! His policies could not keep at bay the capitalist tendencies that had dominated China for centuries, and thus his most colossal mistake came into being: "The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution". As Comrade Hoxha said:

"The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power."

The abuses of the "Cultural Revolution" were foreseeable, and avoidable. Unleashing hordes of angry people into the streets to smash the "reactionaries" was a recipe for disaste. The violence and destruction, somewhat lessened by the heroic efforts of Comrade Zhou Enlai, could have been avoided had Mao been capable of containing the whirlwind that he unleashed (he either was not capable, or he did not care). The excesses of the "Cultural Revolution" led directly to the ascendency of Deng Xiaoping and his push to bring capitalism back to China. As a result, China today is as capitalist as the U.S. is.

Nothing need be said of leaders like Nicolae Ceausescu, Ramiz Alia, or Todor Zhivkov, except to say that they all hastened the end of Marxism-Leninism in their respective nations.

Mao's China was never truly Communist, as Mao was more concerned with the typical imperialist practices of the the day: conquest, power, and self-aggrandizement. The Soviet Union was well on its way to actually achieving a truly Socialist society, but was undone by those who were influenced by the power - and the wealth it brings.

Bob Avakian of the RCP makes outlandish claims to try and suggest that socialism did not fail. One such statement is that it was only a "first-stage" in an ongoing revolution. I should point out that capitalism has existed for centuries, and Communism in Europe died in less than 100 years. It also seems unlikely that the People's Republic of China will last to see its 100th birthday. If he is correct, it will be decades before Communism is likely to re-establish itself in any real way. If he's wrong, much work needs to be done to rehabilitate the image of Communism in the world. In either case, the road ahead is rocky for Communism, and smooth as glass for the capitalist exploiters.

Today, Communism in the United States is fragmented into dozens of small groups with no real power or influence. Communism in the rest of the world is beginning to follow the example of the CPUSA and integrate into the capitalist system. In those few areas where Socialism holds sway still, some, like North Korea, are brutal dictatorships, others, like Venezuela, are elected and could be voted out in future elections.

Communism needs to embrace its roots, to re-educate itself on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. Until we can operate according to those fundamental principles, Communism will remain small, fragmented, isolated, and ineffective.

Bob Avakian and the RCP

The RCP "Revolutionary Communist Party" is a small, ostensibly Communist, organisation cast in the mold of Maoism. In actuality, it is a dangerous cult of personality that has abandoned the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism.

RCP founder Bob Avakian has cast himself in the role of a dictator, having led the group since its inception in 1975. Much like the dictatorships of Eastern Europe, it would appear that only death or disgrace will bring in a (possibly) real Marxist-Leninist to the leadership position.

An email from a comrade might help to expose Avakian and his cult (the italics are mine):

"The RCP is supposedly Maoist but they are and always have been and always will be a complete cult. It's all about this Avakian moron, who paints himself as a combination of Marx, Elvis, Lenin, Dylan and Mao. It's a shame that so many kids who could do good work end up being taken in by the RCP's web. I've read some of their stuff and it's all garbage, this "New Synthesis". Anything I found good about any of it were things already out there that Avakian cleverly refashioned to call it his own.
One of our comrades came out of the RCP alive and I'd like to talk to him about that sometime.
One RCP thing: about 2-3 years ago on the internet somewhere (youtube maybe) I saw video
of a New York protest and a bunch of RCP members, all young females I think, holding hands
and dancing in a circle chanting "Avakian is the answer" over and over. Yes the working class
and oppressed won't rally around jobs and quality of life, but they will about Bob Avakian. Creepy."

I must confess that I have not seen the above mentioned video, but I can say that it is indeed true that the "New Synthesis" is nothing but a rehash of material that has already been written - combined with a cultish elevation of Avakian to "Chairman" status. It is really quite disturbing.

The blurb about one of his books, "Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism!", states:

"A bold and challenging book that cuts right to the debate of our times. Is capitalism the best of all possible worlds? Avakian contrasts the brutal realities of the free market to the claims of its defenders."

This clearly shows his concept of Communism: It is the same as every other Communist's concept of Communism. Is capitalism bad? YES! I don't need a fuhrer to tell me that!

His books and website are colorful and flashy, designed to attract the young and suggestible. His name is repeated over, and over, and over again. A Communist with a messiah complex is a danger to Communism, and to the world at large.

The Failure of the CPUSA

The CPUSA, in its FAQ section, has this to say about Communism and religion:

"Communists are not against religion. We are against capitalism. In fact, the Party has its own Religion Commission which seeks to build positive relations with religious people and communities in the struggle to make life better for working people. Most religious people believe in justice, peace, and respectful relations among the peoples of the world, and many are motivated by their faith to work for those goals.

Membership in the Communist Party is open to all who agree with our program, regardless of religious beliefs."

Sadly, this is indicative of the depths to which the CPUSA has sunk. Rather than following the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, they have adopted a liberal Democrat stance in nearly every issue.

This issue, however, is clearly spelled out in Marxist-Leninist thought: Religion is superstition, and it has done more harm than good. Marxism-Leninism teaches Historical and Dialectical Materialism - viewpoints which are diametrically opposed to religious thought.

Religion (all of them) teaches that some "being" or "beings" created everything that we see, think, and feel - therefore man is subservient. This is a form of idealism that is directly and forcefully refuted by Marxism-Leninism.

The CPUSA, in an attempt to attract members, have ignored this basic notion of Marxist-Leninist thought. The CPUSA and its leader, Sam Webb, have turned a once proud political organisation into a branch of the Democratic Party - even going so far as to endorse capitalist candidates for the American presidency. Notice in the quote above from the CPUSA FAQ: "We are against capitalism." How can you be against capitalism, when you endorse one of their candidates, and encourage your members to vote for them?

The CPUSA has failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, it's betrayed the Communist movement, and have duped its followers into doing the same.

The Conquest of Tibet: An Act of Imperialist Aggression

The Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950 was an act of imperialist aggression that is, even today, ignored by Communist organisations throughout the world. Many of these organisations create excuses to justify the invasion - all the while condemning similar invasions by U.S. imperialists (Iraq, Afghanistan).

Sam Marcy, the former leader of the Workers World Party, had this to say:

"The Chinese, we believe, used sound judgment in 1950, when they simply made Tibet an autonomous region within the Chinese Republic. They subsequently signed an agreement with the Tibetan government, which gave the Chinese People's Republic control over no more than the foreign policy of Tibet, and the right to maintain the Chinese Army within its borders."

Marxism-Leninism teaches historical materialism, which is, at its core, objective. The above statement by Marcy is nothing but Chinese propaganda, and not at all objective. The "agreement" was forced on the government of Tibet with the threat of complete military conquest. Giving up foreign policy control, and being forced to maintain a foreign countries military is invasion - not autonomy (Ask the Iraqis!). As such, the "agreement", which was signed under duress, was a lie and is invalid.

Marcy concludes his article with the following:

"The correct answer to the question of Tibet we believe lies in this: that the Socialist rights of 650 million people involved in building a new social order are far greater than the bourgeois-democratic rights of an ancient, ossified, and decadent nobility disguised in the form of a theocracy, even though they may still command the greater portion of the population at this time."

Marcy made several vague arguments about a free Tibet being a magnet for U.S. imperialism, and that justified the Chinese invasion. So much for the Communist concept of democracy. To say that the people of Tibet had less rights - simply because they were not Socialist - is ridiculous to the extreme.

The Red Phoenix - the "news" blog of the American Party of Labor, recently published an article about the meeting of Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama. Among the ridiculous assertions made in that article is that the Dalai Lama was a Nazi collaborator. The Dalai Lama, born in 1935 (two years after Hitler came to power), was only 10 when World War II ended. The notion that a little boy had Nazi sympathies is outrageously ridiculous!

A second attempt to link the Dalai Lama to Nazi Germany involved Bruno Beger, a member of the 1938 -1939 Nazi expedition to Tibet. Since the current Dalai Lama was only 4 years old at the time, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that he could not have had anything to do with the expedition, or Beger. In fact, the current Dalai Lama was not even recognised as such until his 6th year - two years after the end of the expedition.

A Nazi Collaborator, indeed!

The Red Phoenix also dredges up the old Chinese chestnut about how much of a despot the Dalai Lama was. China invaded in 1950 - when the Dalai Lama was 15 years old. He was not invested with his authority until he was 16 - the year after China invaded. Tibet was ruled by regents until then, but by that time - China was in control. Most despots have complete and total control over a country. The Dalai Lama had no control - in fact, he spent most of the years between 1941 and 1951 in school.

Mao Tse-tung was enraptured by the mineral and material wealth of Tibet. He wanted Hitlerian style "breathing room" for the exploding Chinese population. He wanted to flex his new found muscle. Tibet, and the Tibetan people, paid the price for his imperialist aggression, and they continue to pay the price.

Sadly, Communists the world over choose to ignore this. The hypocrisy of stating that a Communist nation can invade foreign nations at will, but capitalist nations cannot - is one of the reasons why Communism has lost its credibility.