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.
I’m not even finished yet, but wow, the 10 best and worst list Sims wrote is really really really really really really really bad. I’m not sure how you can write something like that and call yourself a communist.
Here’s a reaction some of some our comrades to this atrocity Joe Sims wrote: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/30885
A comrade from the CPUSA was justifying that horrible stuff, claiming Joe Sims does not hold these views nowadays. I respect that comrade, but I believe they are just being deluded by the opportunists inside his party. At least he didn’t show any evidence that Joe Sims is now an actual communist.
He sounds like an anarchist in that article
This was an informative read given I don’t know enough about the CPUSA. One thing that always frustrates me (though I do very much understand why) is when folks resign/quit an org when they see it changing in a bad way. It just means that the reformists/revisionists have even less resistance to making sure their goals happen. Again, I understand that leaving might be the only functional option at the time. And I know there are plenty of rational reasons for each person (that are both public and personal) to choose this option. So I don’t mean any disrespect. Just always feels like it is kind of what their opponents would want to happen. I hope that we do see the CPUSA stop going the failed path (which they aren’t the only party that needs to) of trying to work with the Democratic Party. We have seen even amongst the Dems how little they care for making deals and following through on them (aside from the ones made with their rich members/supporters and the corps ran by said members/supporters). We continue to see their outright hostility towards the more left of centre members, while tripping over themselves to be seen working with the Republicans. Even if there is very popular outcry for them to stop doing this. The party should be firmly against being in support of any of the capitalist parties candidates. And should be doing everything possible to both support and inspire the working and poor masses. As it stands they (and really all other anti-capitalist parties/orgs) should be going real hard into winning over so many of the disenfranchised that are done with the Dems. We are seeing so many perfect moments and examples of the outright failures of the Dems and the very real rise of the fascist Christian right-wing. It is too perfect a time to be wasting it by “deal making” with the enemies of the people.
It just means that the reformists/revisionists have even less resistance to making sure their goals happen.
I mostly agree. Unless the party is expelling others for their revolutionary stance, or it is hegemonically reformist, it’s always worth it staying in the party to fight for a better direction
deleted by creator
(that wished to remain anonymous)
Oh no… Here comes the drama!
No drama, it’s understandable why they wish to remain anonymous. They organize inside the party, if this text is associated with them, they may be expelled from it.
This “anonymous” BS is how bourgeois media spread lies.
The essay could be entirely full of lies; but we can’t easily falsify it, because we don’t know who made it. It’s possible that the FBI bribed you; but that conclusion is needless paranoia.
It wouldn’t cause much damage; but I’d becareful of using the “anonymous source”.
The essay could be entirely full of lies; but we can’t easily falsify it, because we don’t know who made it.
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.
It’s possible that the FBI bribed you; but that conclusion is needless paranoia.
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.
