Disqus - Latest Comments for LJAlbright

Re: Confessions of a post-Cold War communist

LJAlbright — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:31:31 -0000

I will reiterate my view that the "right wing" comment was a cheap shot. The right wing will attack and bait the CPUSA (at least that segment of it that doesn't think the Party collapsed five decades ago) regardless of what the Party does -- or individual communists say and/or do.

So, the right wing should attack us -- it's what they do -- and their attack mentality isn't limited to the CPUSA.

Re: Confessions of a post-Cold War communist

LJAlbright — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:23:14 -0000

With all due respect, Mulligas, your statement that "Many used secret names or otherwise acted secretly because of McCarthyism" is factually incorrect.

The use of "Party names" and related practices pre-dates the McCarthy period by decades -- going back to the formation of the two communist parties in 1919. The Russian Federation of the Socialist Party, which took part in the founding of the Communist Party in the US, advocated an "underground" movement from the first -- even before the Palmer Raids.

In fact, using "Party names" may have started as an emulation of the Bolshevik experience: Lenin's last name was Ulyanov; Stalin's last name was Djugashvilli and Trotsky's last name was Bronstein, to name just a few.

I know you mention books in an effort to be helpful, but what are your own thoughts? I know what Szymanski wrote; I know what Parenti wrote; and I know what Roger wrote. What are your experiences in organizing your co-workers? Are you active in the anti-war movement, the YCL or CPUSA?

When the so-called "new communist movement" emerged in the early 1970's, did you know that *all* of them had the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" in their programs or constitutions? Did you know that all of them "upheld" Stalin and/or Mao? These things were used in their critique of the CPUSA as "revisionist" -- something they said was the case since 1956.

Question: Where is that movement today? Others have said that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a fine concept that simply requires a little education. But in order to "educate" someone, they have to be listening to you.

The English words of the Internationale include the following: "We want no condescending saviors to rule us from their judgment hall." That's one of the things that strikes me about the "new communist movement" of the 1970's -- largely a student movement that proclaimed its various grouplets as the "vanguard" of a working class -- a working class that was largely imaginary and to which they were condescending.

Finally, you write: "Your the one who's creating talking points for the right wing." That's a cheap shot that demeans you and the argument you seek to make. What "right wing" are you referring to? I know a lot of people in the CPUSA and haven't met a comrade yet whom I would identify as "right wing."

Oh, and by the way, "your" is properly spelled "you're" :-)

Re: Confessions of a post-Cold War communist

LJAlbright — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:17:01 -0000

It seems to me that Joel's post, as well as the past few from Joe, compliment each other at their essence. In my opinion, that essence is this: "The communist movement has contributed much, but has also been its own worst enemy."

We can decry as we must the insipid anti-Communism of the pathetically obtuse who, in their own fashion, have been as sectarian and cult-like as one would likely encounter anywhere. But at the same time, can we deny that the communist movement itself put more than a few bullets in their ideological guns?

I have a high regard for Norman, and he's raised the issue of historical context on a few occasions. But what I suspect Norman is missing is that the issue isn't context, but relevancy. In other words, are we to worship at the altar of past events or be actors on the present?

I appreciate history, as Norman and others know full well. If Joe and Joel had to constantly note historical context, we wouldn't have blog posts -- we would have books. Yes, Lenin did battle with social democrats of the Eduard Bernstein-type persuasion, as he also did battle with others in his own Party. And sometimes, he lost. (The social democrats organized in the Socialist International have been in crises for quite a while, by the way).

One comment Norman made did pique my interest. He writes of the "nasty, behind the scenes factional craziness, which was always self-destructive and which democratic centralism was supposed to prevent. "

This begs the question: Why didn't it prevent that nasty, behind-the-scenes factional craziness? Is democratic centralism a flawed concept, or was it just a problem of application by imperfect human beings? And if it was the latter, you can only go to that well so many times because socialism is at its core about humanity.

While this can only be conjecture, I surmise that neither Lenin nor Stalin would be surprised at the bellicose nature of the Bush administration, but would be shocked if they knew the USSR didn't survive eight decades. And I imagine Lenin, in particular, would have put his massive brain power at work on the issues surrounding how high technology has transformed the working class, and our world.

But I want to make this more real. The CPUSA is a very small party. If you compared the number of Party members against the total population of the US, the disparity would be sufficient to move you to open the liquor cabinet and take a belt. (I know I would if my wife would tell me where she hid the key!)

Our Party has used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." Did that in and of itself make us more effective? We at one time proclaimed unity with the Communist International. Did that in and of itself make us effective fighters in the day to day struggles impacting our class and our nation? And Norman has already mentioned that democratic centralism didn't prevent factionalism.

I am not saying we throw the proverbial baby out with the equally proverbial bath water. But if you leave the baby in the bathwater too long, both the baby and the bathwater are going to get cold....and messy. And this analogy is, I think, is appropriate for those who view elements of Marxism or Leninism as shibboleths.

My state representative recently responded to a letter I wrote by quoting from James Madison. My email response was short: "James Madison is dead, and there were not 50 states when he died."

Fortunately, our Party is growing. And among the reasons it is growing, I believe, is that people are inspired by our openness, as well as our participation in the movements of today; whether that is the labor movement, anti-war movement or the movement that has emerged around Senator Obama's campaign. Simply put, "we're out there and we're doing stuff."

One final point: It seems to me a contradiction that some who would say they're advocates for change on the one hand seem somewhat afraid of it on the other. I think that whereas twenty or so years ago we could say "The Communist Party is still around," today we can say "The Communist Party lives!" Because there is a renewed vigor to compliment the stamina. And that isn't simply a good thing, it's a great thing!

Re: Political Affairs After the Deluge by Norman Markowitz

LJAlbright — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:47:00 -0000

I want to thank Norman for the work he did in preparing this post. I hope he won't mind a few comments.

The events surrounding the 25th National Convention in Cleveland, from which emerged the Committees of Correspondence [now the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism] require a greater treatment than Norman's few lines might -- incorrectly -- suggest to some readers.

My opinion on this is predicated on my belief that our Party is still feeling the effects of what transpired before, during and after that convention; the extent of that impact is doubtless an arguable point and will probably vary somewhat substantially depending on the individual.

The basis for a broader discussion, I feel, should not be conducted in a way that will reopen old wounds -- and candor requires me to note that some of the issues at the time had a rapier-like sharpness. Sometimes discussions of political and organizational differences obscure the fact that human beings are involved and I think I can say without too much fear of contradiction that there were good people on both sides who emerged at the end of the day with substantial amounts of hurt.

As Norman wrote, a number of people who originally left the Party to join the Committees have returned. What Norman left out -- and I am guessing it is based on his focus on PA rather than any oversight on his part-- is the number of proactive steps taken by the Party leadership to reach out to people who had left the Party for the Committees of Correspondence. I don't think there has been sufficient recognition that these efforts, offered in a spirit of conciliation and comradeship, were one of our Party's greater moments.

On PA itself. I have been reading PA for well over 30 years; more than that if you consider that the University I attended had complete volumes going back to 1962 -- longer if I wanted to avail myself of microfilm.

While I always gained something from each issue, I have to say that for too many years the publication had a somewhat insular tone; the writing was done almost exclusively by national or district Party leaders. I feel the focus of PA over the past few years has given the magazine a broader, more mass appeal. It is something I am proud to show to family and friends, and by and large they can relate to the articles. In the process, they have had their eyes opened a bit about our movement in ways that might have been difficult or impossible before.

I know that the present orientation of PA is a sore point for some who want a more "theoretical" journal. The way I look at it is that as comforting as it is to have a blanket to wrap oneself in on a winter evening, its much more effective to have a heat source that will warm an entire home. And for this the Party and the PA editorial board deserve boundless credit.

Re: Third Edition: Worst and Best of Marxism

LJAlbright — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:29:44 -0000

I think it was Roger who, in response to an earlier edition of Joe's "ten best and worst," wondered whether we were somehow diminished by the borrowing of a format popularized by David Letterman. Personally, I rather enjoy these notes and asides from Joe -- and better to borrow from Letterman than from "The Gong Show," "Deal or No Deal" or "You Bet Your Life" ("Say the secret word, and Groucho will give you a Party card.").

On democratic centralism. As is so often the case, I agree with Joe. And yet, when I look at some of the differences between organizations using democratic centralism and those that do not, I see the former being more consistently activist oriented and the latter being more inclined to evolve into discussion groups with no closure -- and little activism. I would never be so foolish as to suggest that democratic centralism is the sole reason for this distinction as I have observed it. But if I want to have important discussions with no closure and no action, I can do that at home with my teenaged kids. :-)

Black belt thesis: Yes, this was not the greatest idea ever promoted by the Party. Harry Haywood, who I think was mentioned by Norman in another post on a different topic, was one of those who clung to this thesis to the end of his life. I read Haywood's autobiography more than thirty years ago, and still remember the story of his being in Moscow and asked to give a speech. Haywood, then a young man, was completely tongue tied. The Soviet interpreter was not affected -- making lengthy remarks that frequently included the phrase "Tovarishch Haywood skazal....." ("Comrade Haywood said....."). Another African-American comrade, standing next to Haywood, turned to him and said: "Man, you ain't skazaled a damn thing!" Nothing whatsoever to do with the black belt thesis, but an excuse to share a story that still makes me chuckle.

On Mao. I quote another Lennon (John): "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow." I thought about that when I went away to college, and made sure I never carried a picture of Chairman Mao. Sadly, in my case, it didn't seem to make much a difference one way or another. :-)

On Emma Goldman: Agree it's a great quote, but still don't understand why she was given so prominent a role in Warren Beatty's film, "Reds." (But having Maureen Stapleton portray her was almost enough for me not to care).

I look forward to more of these, Joe, and to your taking on your "left" critics.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

LJAlbright — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:00:05 -0000

Before addressing myself to some of Joe's posts, let me ask a question of my own: Are we social scientists, or are we seeking to create some form of quasi-religious sect or cult? I pose the question in this way because, based on at least some of the responses here one would think that Joe is guilty of the rankest heresy, or that he took a bone away from a favored dog. But instead of using the archaic religious term of "heretic," some choose to use the more "Marxist" term of "revisionist."

Well, you cannot have things both ways. Either the body of work that has come to be known as Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is a social science, or it is sacred dogma. These terms are mutually exclusive. If it is a social science then it, like any other form of science, is subject to the testing of the data and to the accumulation of knowledge. If this were not the case, we might still believe the earth is flat, that gravity is a philosophically contested concept, and that any number of physical and emotional illnesses are best treated by leeches.

How many of us were drawn to the Communist Party because we were moved to challenge "conventional wisdom," to rebel against racism and reaction, to dissent and take a stand for what we believe to be a more humane system we call socialism? Since when did that spirit of intellectual challenge and rebellion end the moment we decided to be communists?

That said, let me share some of my thoughts.

1. Dictatorship of the proletariat. Yes, Joe is right that it is an awful formulation. It was used by Marx in the early years of his writing (he was, I think, 30 years old when he collaborated with Engels in the writing of the Manifesto). And Joe is equally correct that it hasn't been part of the communist movement -- unless you want to count the RCP and Progressive Labor Party, for instance, since both these groups use that phrase prominently -- for many years.

Nowhere in his post does Joe suggest that the working class is irrelevant, or that class struggle doesn't exist (see his "ten best" list). He's saying "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a terrible phrase and he's correct.

Gee whiz, Marx made a formulation in 1848 that the historical experience doesn't support and doesn't translate well to 2008. Go figure. That makes Marx human. To take issue with Joe for "revisionism" for raising this crosses the line from social science into idolatry, in my opinion.

2. Single party state. There is more to this than I could possibly address. But a couple of points. I tend to believe mainstream journalism in the US was better when there was more than one daily newspaper in a city. When there was only one daily paper, there was an arrogance and really poor reportage was the rule rather than the exception. I think the single party state became a mechanism for bureaucracy and careerism. I knew Russians who were CPSU members one day, and then embraced Yeltsin the next day, and that was a real eye opener for me.

3. Defending the Soviet Union as a precondition for joining the Comintern. I am sure that had I been a communist and been living when this was put in, I would have supported it. In the 80 or so years since then, I think we can objectively say that the CPUSA and much of the international movement was ill served by making international working class solidarity synonymous with the policy of a state.

I am not sure whether I would agree with Joe that this is one of the worst ideas of Marxism as much as it is one of the worst things consented to by a large number of people who considered themselves to be Marxists.

3. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism. Let's accept that Marx didn't call himself a Marxist and that Lenin didn't call himself a Leninist. Jesus Christ didn't call himself a Christian -- nor did the Apostles -- all of whom lived their lives as Jews. What occurs to me is that there is a pretty wide gulf between those who call themselves Christians, Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, and those who would so identify themselves and really have a clue as to what those terms mean.

On the other hand, its become a tradition. People are accustomed to seeing those terms if they've been around the communist movement for any length of time. It's rather like the fact that Paul McCartney would appear with his famous Hofner violin bass guitar for Beatles concerts, while in the studio he used a Rickenbacker 4001. He did it solely, he said, because people were used to seeing it.

Whether or not we use the terms doesn't, ipso facto, change who were are as communists any more than my deciding to call myself "Sid" would change who I am. The Pentagon could call something a "manually driven implosion device" and an "agricultural defoliation tool" and it would still be a hammer and sickle.

4. I won't comment on the Brecht terminology because I would like to take a hammer to the television set based on some of the stuff on TV, like the Lohan show (I agree with Anderson Cooper!) or the Fox network.

5. I like both Gramsci and granola, so I am not objective on this point.

6. You can add me to list of people who aren't sure what "negation of the negation" means. If you negate something that's negative, wouldn't you call that "positive," a "remedy" or a "cure?"

7. Religion as the opiate of the masses. Yes, something we don't really need. I've always taken it to mean people use religion like an opiate -- which is to say, it takes away their pain. It can also be used to keep people from questioning, challenging, or seeking to make things better. I think this was Marx's point -- also made by the rebel minister portrayed by Gene Hackman in the Poseidon Adventure. :-) But Joe is right: God isn't our enemy, capitalism is.

I agree with all Joe's "best" points, but would move his #4 on that side to #1. One of the strengths of the CPUSA throughout its history has been the recognition of the toxic role of racism. This is something that the "Marxist" parties predating the CPUSA, the Socialist Party and Socialist Labor Party, were slow to recognize and act upon.

And the SLP, by the way, is the perfect example of a political organization that has become a kind of secular church, printing endless passages from Daniel DeLeon (whose ideas, apparently, Lenin viewed as "not at all bad") but completely uninvolved with day-to-day struggles. In this discussion, let's not forget that this involvement in the real-life issues confronting us today is one of our great strengths.