A comrade (that wished to remain anonymous) made an extraordinary analysis on CPUSA’s ideological tendencies. I think this piece of text is extremely important for CPUSA members to begin discussing the future of their organization and strategies to fight against the visibly liquidationist tendency inside the party.
We decided to share this article on ProleWiki because of their relevance for Marxists-Leninists inside the USA.
Have you read the document? The authorship is mostly irrelevant if the article is based on facts, even with references included. What would be the difference if you knew the name of the person, their exact location, or something? Because this is the only information that is not presented. Your reasoning is solely based on the fact that the person wished to remain anonymous, but they are known by one of our administrators nevertheless.
You are making a critique of form, not content, and a very superficial form, because it’s how we have presented it, not the person. You are ignoring the fact that the person not only portrays accurately some disputes inside the party, but they actually reference most of it with sources in the essay. However, if you think this document is not an accurate portrayal, you are free to write a piece criticizing it as well, it will be helpful nonetheless.
I agree, it is needless paranoia.
I did. The article is factually correct, so sorry about that.
Actually, the “anonymous source” is primarily used as a scapegoat evidence in journalism, not essays.