Articles » cpusa

WTTW Chicago remembers communist Frank Lumpkin, 93

Communist Party USA — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:31:00 -0500

Frank Lumpkin, steel workers, labor activist and communist passed away in Chicago March 1 at the age of 93. Below is a short video from Chicago T.V. station WTTW rememebring his life and the struggle to save the jobs of workers at Wisconsin Steel.

Here is an article describing the celebration of Lumpkin's 90 birthday: Lumpkin, Saint of Chicago, feted at 90

Read the People's World obituary.

Convention Discussion: More Thoughts for the Party Convention

Norman Markowitz — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:36:00 -0500

This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA's 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. CPUSA.org takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this article or other articles in the pre-convention discussion. All contributions must meet the guidelines for discussion. To read other contributions to this discussion, visit the site of the Pre-Convention Discussion period.

All contributions to the discussion should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection not to the individual venues.For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can email convention2010@cpusa.org.

We must continue to understand that President Obama is an African-American and his victory flew in the face of nearly four centuries of institutional and ideological racism in North America, from the introduction of slavery in the 17th century.

The struggle against racism and the victories against it have always been a vital barometer of social progress in the U.S. We as Communists have understood since the first years of our party's birth more than any other integrated political group that a steady and continual struggle against racism could not be separated from all working class struggles and was necessary to the development of class consciousness and unity among the working class.

But there are still millions and millions of Americans, including working class people, influenced by racist ideology, "uncomfortable" with an African-American president, targets for rightwing politicians seeking to "surf" in what they hope will be a wave of racist backlash. And rightwing media appeals to them.

Yesterday a colleague of mine mentioned that she heard on a prominent rightwing talk radio station in New Jersey callers claiming that the Obama construction stimulus funds were being used for construction jobs for Blacks, a crackpot statement that can easily be shown to be factually false, but that is not the point--the prejudice is the point and such examples of the big lie are around and are being spread in subtle and not so subtle ways.

We all knew and our leadership has acknowledged over and over again that The Obama administration is not a socialist or Communist administration and that its attempts to advance the progressive program that it ran on are handicapped by the last thirty years of "deregulation, detaxation, privatization," which were advanced by righting Republicans and accepted by Democrats. We are not spreading any illusions about the Obama administration by not joining in the general left attacks on him and his administration

If we wish to strengthen the working class movement, ourselves as a party and influence the Obama administration to succeed in the way that the New Deal government succeeded, we should both make it clear that we reject and will fight in an unqualified way against the openly reactionary and less openly racist attacks against the administration, which are the main attacks that it faces, and also that we will criticize the legislation that comes from this congress and offer clear progressive alternatives, making it clear that the millions of new voters and new activists who elected Obama must carry forward the struggle to achieve the change that he campaigned on.

Let me end with a few practical policies which we might put forward:

First federal assumption of the state debts of those states which don't have "right to work" laws and which have relatively advanced social and educational services, states like New Jersey, California, New York, Illinois, etc. Since repeal of Taft-Hartley is unlikely to say the least, giving states the option to repeal state right to work laws and upgrade education and social services to get their deficits absorbed would be a good policy. It would also produce many jobs by ending and to a considerable extent beginning to reverse the public sector cutbacks of the last three decades.

Another practical policy would be to reverse the wildly destructive policies of the last thirty years by enacting new national banking legislation and securities and exchange legislation would not only repeal the deregulation of the last three decades but establish a much higher level of regulation and public control over Wall Street and the Banking system (for example, making the chair of the Federal Reserve a Cabinet member serving at the pleasure of the President, not an appointed representative of private banks serving long terms which overlap administrations who have very limited controls over his policies.

A final practical policy would be to call for comprehensive tax reform, connecting a significant increase in progressive income and corporation taxes with decreases in regressive property taxes, sales taxes, and various other taxes and fees which have skyrocketed in recent decades.

These are policies that labor candidates progressive candidates, even the administration if it boldly moves in a progressive direction the way Roosevelt for example did in 1936, can go to the people with and win.

They are the sort of issues through which we can raise questions of the distribution of wealth and power in the society, turn working peoples attention to economic solutions that will strengthen them and make them more secure, which is what Communists in principle have struggled to do since the Manifesto, strengthening both them and ourselves by both learning from them and bringing our Marxist-Leninist understanding (whether we call it that or not) to them.

There are many other issues concerning international relations, the dangers of the administration's escalation of the Afghan intervention, for it, for the working class in this country, and of course in the region and the world.

Let me conclude with a reference from an article that Karl Marx wrote at the beginning of the U.S. Civil War which I think has relevance for our situation today. The article was in Horace Greeley's New York Tribune and it took strong issue with the British press who were attacking the Union for not fighting the war as an anti-slavery war and with those who were suggesting that their was no difference between Lincoln and Buchanan. "It is one of its pet maneuvers"(Marx wrote of the English press, which was safely anti-slavery since slavery had been abolished in the British Empire in 1832) "to taunt the present Republican administration with the doings of its Pro-Slavery predecessors." Marx went on to say that from the papers which "tell us that they cannot sympathize was the North because its war is no Abolitionist war, we are informed that 'the desperate expedient of proclaiming Negro emancipation and summoning the slaves to a general insurrection ' is a thing 'repulsive and dreadful' and that a 'compromise' would be "far preferable to success purchased at such a cost and stained by such a crime.' "

I doubt that there are many on the left and among liberals and in our party for that matter who have any plans of a practical nature to advance a socialist revolution in the near future, which would be the equivalent of the great slave revolt that Marx saw British and American liberals fearing. But their positions, as Marx understood objectively aided the Confederacy by refusing to grasp that the victory of Lincoln and the Republicans to begin with represented a major change in the North from what had existed a few years before under Buchanan as we have contended that the victory of the Obama campaign has represented such a change. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, no more than Obama is a socialist, but for Marx, analyzing the larger political balance of forces and the necessity of ending slaveholder control over the U.S. economy, this was not so relevant. What is relevant is that the Obama administration has opened space in which the left can present

Convention Discussion: Summary of Connecticut CP Membership Discussion

Connecticut Communist Party USA — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:23:00 -0500

Pre-convention discussion in Connecticut is off to a good start.

At a kick-off state committee meeting the main discussion document was put into the context of our building blocks, the contributions of Marx, Lenin, Dimitrov and Gramsci, which help us analyze the current difficult transitional political terrain. This laid the basis for understanding the main thesis of the document which upholds the necessity of building broad unity against the ultra-right, building the strength of the core forces -- labor, racially oppressed, women, youth -- and the Communist Party. Building the Party among trade unionists is important, but only part of our responsibility. Building the Party at the grass roots in the broader community gives a bigger world view and gives added meaning for trade unionists to join.

Clubs are reading from the convention discussion workbook and relating the ideas to their own work and experiences. After a few discussions they will put their thinking into writing for submission as contributions to the national discussion.

Groups gathered to watch the first two video broadcasts by Sam Webb and Jarvis Tyner and enjoyed each.

In one discussion following Jarvis Tyner's video broadcast on the African American equality struggle, someone asked the question, "Taking into account the right-wing attack on Obama, how do we then hold Obama accountable?" In response the point was made that the thrust of Jarvis Tyner's presentation centered on the need to hold the right-wing accountable, because that is the main source of attack on the working class and people. In the health care struggle, the main obstacle to public option or single payer is not Obama, it is the medical industrial complex entrenched in government and the right-wing Republican political establishment. That's where our fire should be directed. Our task is to build a movement powerful enough to give momentum to progressive Democrats in Congress and create the climate that moves centrists as well.

Enthusiasm was expressed for Jarvis Tyner's emphasis on building broad unity and action in this time of economic crisis. A worker in the cultural field expressed the importance of utilizing popular education methods to engage young people in the struggle and share the thinking of the Communist Party. Appreciation was expressed for the approach to African American - immigrant unity, reflecting concrete experiences to build such unity in New Haven.

"I am so glad I came!" was the concluding remark.

The broadcast set the framework for two overflow. multi-racial African American History Month events in Hartford and New Haven with an address by Dr. Gerald Horne on the necessity to preserve and expand affirmative action for the good of all. The New Haven Firebirds, African American firefighters organization, was honored as part of the ongoing work to build unity in counter to the lawsuit of 19 white firefighters claiming reverse discrimination which was heralded by the right-wing and used to try and oppose the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. The direct connection between affirmative action and jobs for everyone was made.

In one workplace club discussion which centered on the sections "Attitude towards reform" and "Role of the working class" members had the opportunity to think through the inter-relationship of short term and long term goals, and how winning immediate smaller struggles helps lay the basis for bigger more fundamental victories. Examples were considered of new, positive developments in the labor movement that raise class consciousness and open the door to new organizing possibilities.

A club of former industrial workers in the African American community read the section of the main document, "New Normal." Discussion centered around the fact that "when there are changes at the top, we workers are forced to work for less and bear the brunt." This was related to club efforts with the Labor Council to build a coalition that can educate and organize enough voice and action to overcome right-wing opposition standing in the way of massive job creation.

Clubs are in the mix as the labor movement begins to unfold the local struggle for jobs connected to the national program. One club is involved around the closing of a grocery store which will leave the community and workers stranded. Another club is involved with its local labor council around the cleanup of a brown-field former industrial site.

A class in Marxism will dovetail with the convention discussion and give grounding to newer members and friends.

Convention Discussion: Moving from anti-ultra-right to anti-monopoly

David Bester — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:19:00 -0500

I recommended in my first piece that the Party move from anti-ultra-right to anti-monopoly struggle, with an emphasis on the final destination - socialism. I argued that this was the only way to grow the Party.

Some object on the grounds that the anti-ultra-right fight has not been won. There have been a couple of contributions playing variations on the "ultra-right has not been decisively defeated" theme. That's the argument for not moving to an anti-monopoly focus. There are several flaws in it.

First - it reflects a mechanical ideology-centered approach to political progress that takes no account of material conditions. First we defeat the right-most ideology, then we move on down the line. Recession, depression, or boom is irrelevant to so robotic a strategy.

Just the opposite - the anti-ultra right phase was correct mainly because the capitalist economy was on the whole booming from the 80s through the mid 00s. The economy dictated the basic terrain of struggle, which was an advantageous one for capital. That is what forced a defensive battle focused only on the most reactionary elements of capital - anti-ultra-right.

Right now the capitalist system is choking, lurching like a bloodthirsty vampire in the moments before the dawn. It is sucking blood from the state while at the same time squeezing workers into ever greater exploitation and joblessness. Banks and bosses are the targets of indignation not just on the left but among the public at large. This is the moment for an offensive against monopoly capital with the backdrop of promotion of the socialist alternative.

The ultra-right, the vanguard of reaction, is like the cavalry in a 19^th century army. When you are in retreat it is a terror, mopping up hapless infantry and inflicting blow after blow. At that point it has to be the focus of all tactics. But when the fight is joined on level or favorable terms, it is nonsense to say "we must exterminate the last of their cavalry before attacking their artillery and infantry." Nobody ever won a battle like that.

Certainly Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not set themselves on eliminating the Black Hundreds and the other Church-Tsar reactionaries before attacking the Provisional Government with the April Theses and eventually overthrowing it with the October revolution.

Even in 1909, with the reaction in full dominance, Lenin advised:

"The election is taking place in an atmosphere of the most rabid reaction, with the counter- revolutionary fury of the tsarist government gang raging in full force. All the more important then is it that this reaction should he opposed by the nomination put forward by the Social- Democratic Party, the only party which even from the platform of the Black-Hundred Third Duma has succeeded in raising its voice, declaring its unshakable socialist convictions, reiterating the slogans of the glorious revolutionary struggle, and unfurling the republican banner in the face of the Octobrist-Black-Hundred heroes of counter-revolution and the liberal (Cadet) ideologists and defenders of counter-revolution."

Because of the conditions, Lenin was against accommodation with the Cadets --- Russia's Democrats of the time --- and said that the Party should, via its own candidates, counter-pose its "unshakable socialist convictions" to both the Black Hundreds and the Cadets. The connection between Lenin's organizational success and this spirit should not be glossed over.

The way it represents a repudiation of a mechanical progression-of-ideologies approach to social progress should also be considered.

"But the ultra-right is regrouping with the Tea Parties" etc. To raise this objection is to fail to take into account that in desperate times the extremes are strengthened at the expense of the failing center. Of course the ultra-right is gaining steam. So will we, if we play our hand against decrepit capitalism correctly.

If on the other hand we hang on to the miserable center, the perpetrators of tax breaks for the wealthy, bailouts for the banks, war, and corporatism, as a kind of talisman against the ultra-right, then there will be no such growth.

Another line implies that if we move from anti-ultra-right to anti-monopoly, we undercut President Obama, who is undoubtedly a man of monopoly. We have to get behind center Democratism because, in the words of Rummel, "If the right succeeds in their efforts to block even the smallest initiatives, it will be a horrible setback with possible severe consequences."

This is a cheap scare tactic that is the left-wing equivalent of right-wingers who rail about how "socialism" is imminent if Obama succeeds in any minor reform. Note the use of hyperbole - "smallest," "horrible," "severe." These are not the signifiers of a cool-headed assessment.

On the contrary, Obama has already failed in initiatives large and small. What's more, there are plenty of Obama initiatives that it would be good to block, like his handouts to big business, extension of Bush era Orwellian security policies, and escalation in Afghanistan.

Rather than treat these failures and betrayals as disasters, we should expose their roots in the bourgeois Democratic Party and the way the government is structured to be anti-democratic. This is the short track to anti-capitalist consciousness. Lenin's advice to the British communists, for instance, was to make "Parliament obviously contemptible" by helping Labour achieve a majority and then exposing it when it did "nothing of importance." The British workers would then realize the importance of taking power into their own hands, much as the Russian workers did when they were betrayed by the Provisional Government.

The worst part of the arguments of those who remain fixated on anti-ultra-right struggle in order to try to be the best Democratic auxiliaries possible is the way they turn the Obama administration's blunderings and bourgeois prejudices into evidence of the supposed weakness of progressive forces. This defeated mindset sees in the Democrats' failings a powerful ultra-right and a disorganized and weak left. From its unrealistic expectations of Obama it derives an incorrect estimate of the balance of forces, and worse, a demoralizing one.

"You're being ultra-radical, you're isolating yourself from the masses," etc. Not in the present economy. In current conditions, isolating oneself from the masses would consist in not attacking monopoly capital and not taking stock of Democratic failings.

We take these truths to be self-evident: capitalism is a crime against humanity, and the Democrats are a bourgeois party, and so, like any other bourgeois party, impossible to cast in any other role than handmaiden of capitalism. The potential of the handmaiden to be more or less servile is not significant in a period when the whole criminal enterprise is exposed to attack.

Comrades, the truth is on our side. Marxists, like Paul Sweezy and Henryk Grossman, have foreseen the inevitability of capitalist self-destruction. That sets us apart from the bourgeois pushers who, intentionally or not, do all they can to put the blame anywhere other than the laws governing capitalist accumulation. How can it not be time for anti-monopoly struggle — now, when we can put our truth against their lies and evasions, for all to see under the penetrating light of general economic crisis?

Convention Discussion: Against the Anti-Communist Impulse: Getting our History Right

Nicholas Hewko — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:07:00 -0500

Recently in our pre-convention discussion, the issue of communist history was raised in Ari Goldman's "For Truth and Reconciliation". It is true that communist history is a vital area of discussion. However, the sentiments expressed in "Truth and Reconciliation" owe far too much to the bourgeois distortions that are passed off as the history of communism.

Goldman claims to be for restoring the "good name" of socialism by acknowledging socialism's "criminal past" as well as its achievements. For acknowledging that actually existing socialism has any achievements at all, Goldman deserves much credit, as few are willing to make such an admission. Indeed, the idea of a Party-wide discussion of our history and what it means is a fine one. However, we must be cautious that we base our interpretations on historical evidence, rather than "common sense" understandings of history as Goldman appears to do. The danger of anti-communist distortions in this regard simply cannot be exaggerated. For example, Goldman refers to "mass starvation," a common theme in anti-communist polemics. Since it isn't clear which specific allegation Goldman is referring to, we will consider the commonly accepted narrative on the Ukrainian famine in the USSR under Stalin. Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, one of the most widely accepted works on the Ukrainian "famine-genocide," asserts that ten million Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death during the collectivization movement between 1930 and 1934. There are a number of problems with this view. First, the allegation of deliberate starvation has no archival support; as the Soviet archives are no longer closed, one would expect that some evidence of Stalin's plan to starve thirty million Ukrainians would have surfaced by now. Indeed, if such a document existed, anti-communist scholars of Conquest's ilk would never tire of citing it. Conquest's allegation is not founded on archival research. Rather, it is based on a misinterpretation of calls to "liquidate" the kulaks (rich peasants) in Pravda. The kulaks were to be liquidated as a class."Liquidation" does not mean extermination; indeed, anyone who loses their home to foreclosure could be said to be "liquidated". Second, the methodology that Conquest uses to determine the number of lives lost to the famine is seriously flawed. Conquest cites Soviet census figures from before the famine, applies an unspecified "natural growth rate," then compares his result to the actual census data from after the famine, arriving at a "population deficit" of thirty million people. Going further, Conquest alleges that post-famine census data were faked by Soviet authorities, again providing no evidence, and claims that the death toll was likely much higher. Further, if one applies Conquest's methodology to U.S. census data, one can obtain a "population deficit" of ten to twenty million for the years 1933-34. In short, Conquest's work on the Ukrainian famine is complete bunk. Nevertheless, Harvest of Sorrow continues to be regarded as worthy of serious scholarly consideration.

While there is not space here to specifically address all the alleged crimes that Goldman points to, there are more general considerations that communists should take into account when forming interpretations of our history. First, the historical double standard which is routinely applied to socialist countries; as we saw above, applying Conquest's "population deficit" method to Soviet census data is considered reputable, but applying it to U.S. census data produces results which are laughable. Likewise, members of the Democratic Party are never called to account for the bombing of Hiroshima, the Vietnam War, or any other crime against humanity committed by Democratic politicians. At worst, these Democratic atrocities are labeled "mistakes" or "Cold War excesses". Indeed, in an organizational sense, Democrats are much closer to these crimes than CPUSA members are to the actions of the CPSU or CPC. Why no "Truth and Reconciliation" for the Democratic Party? The difference is not in the nature of the events, but in the dominant historical narrative. Second, as already stated, we must be vigilant against anti-communist distortions of actual events which can and do reach mythic proportions. Third, it is imperative to consider not only the actions of leaders like Stalin, but also the reasons and historical context behind those actions. For example, it is not enough to note that the Gulag system housed two million prisoners at its peak (not the tens of millions of anti-communist legend); it is also important to understand that of these, not more than 33% were political prisoners, that most survived their terms, and that all this occurred at a time when sabotage and foreign infiltration truly was a threat to the Soviet Union. In short, we must be aware of our tendency to cleave to dominant American attitudes, particularly American exceptionalism, and ways of thinking about history. As an aside, this tendency is clearly embedded in Goldman's opening quote, "None of us, as Americans, would be content to live as citizens in any of the so-called socialist countries in the world today."

The greatest threat to a sane and evidence-based understanding of our history is not the "mealy-mouthed, unconvincing mumbling" of communist apologists, but the blatantly untrue, yet widely accepted, anti-communist myths that make up the dominant historical paradigm. It is true that, unless we confront our history, "we will be forever subject to capitalist finger-pointing," but it does not follow that the dominant capitalist view of our history is correct. Instead, we should endeavor, while holding ourselves to the highest standard of intellectual honesty, to correct the myriad myths and outright lies about communist history. A professor of mine once said, "there is no Truth in history, only contending truths". It's time we made our truth heard.

Convention Discussion: CPUSA at the crossroads

Houston Club CPUSA — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:57:00 -0500

The Communist Party USA offers the best political hope for working people in this country. At a time of great change in the United States, the CPUSA has the experience and history to lead important struggles. With these opportunities come significant questions for our party. The decisions, tactics and conclusions offered by party leadership over the last couple of years demand examination. We believe that our party is at a crossroads and we must make major changes in ideology and practice in order to end years of stagnation and dwindling membership.

POLITICAL STRATEGY AND TACTICS

Alignment with the Democratic Party

Although most progressives were thrilled with the election of President Barack Obama, the first African-American President of this country, we must make a realistic assessment of this achievement.

President Obama's election marks a departure from the direction of the extreme right. However, in no way can it be considered a qualitative change in the direction of our government and nation. Obama is a Democrat, and as such, will continue to represent the interests of the wealthy elite. Many policies antithetical to the interests of working people have been continued, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By not acknowledging these facts, the Party leadership appears to be forsaking its historic role as an unremitting fighter for jobs, equality, peace, not to mention its role in championing socialism.

The fight against the ultra right

Although the ultra right-wing in U.S. Politics remains a threat, its existence cannot justify silence in the face of the Obama administration's errors that harm working class interests. Party leadership has failed to assertively speak out against the White House's erroneous, pro-big-business policies at a time when history requires we do so.

The struggle against Bush policies carried forward into the new administration must continue and intensify. When the administration sides with progressives, it should be supported strongly. Similarly, the obstructionist Republicans and Democrats should be identified clearly and efforts need to be made to remove them from office and replace them with progressives.

We need to work tirelessly to put together the coalitions necessary to build mass movements to respond to the destructive nature of the ultra-right and capitalism. The fight is not over. It has barely started.

DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION OF THE PARTY

The need for organization and discipline

We have been concerned about the lack of organizational effort on the part of CPUSA leadership. In Houston, we have received very few names of individuals in the area interested in the party. We have been very vocal about this and were told by leadership to "stop agitating" about this issue.

This low number of contacts leads to two possible conclusions. One would be the party is not attracting people with its political line so that few are contacting. The other conclusion would be that party staff are not forwarding the names or responding to inquiries. Either of these possibilities would have dire consequences for any effort to build the party and would spell doom for the future of the party if this is continued.

Along these lines, our club has been contacted by frustrated people from around the country who tell us they have attempted to contact the party numerous times and have received no response. Some party members in Houston attempted to contact the YCL and in fact were supported by our District Organizer in this effort and never received a reply. Some friends of the party from Houston attempted to contact the CPUSA and never received a response.

Prioritize youth

The Houston club is greatly encouraged by recent discussion documents that seek to prioritize youth organizing and overall party growth. With such a commitment, we believe, must come a transparent and sincere endeavor to cultivate better internal communications. Specific improvements of day-to-day operations in the party, providing appropriate resources to local clubs, and giving potential recruits an opportunity to connect locally must be part of any national discussion.

Positive Internet developments

To its credit, the CPUSA has named Jim Lane of Dallas to coordinate people contacting the party from the Internet, but who do not live in an area with a club. He has been doing a marvelous job and it is paying off. New members have been writing for our press and one wrote an excellent pre-convention discussion document. Party leadership should provide further guidance for Internet use and should articulate the overall outreach, recruitment and political strategies for its use, especially social media, for local clubs as well as the party as a whole.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Outreach to mass media

There needs to be more outreach from the national office to mass media organizations, particularly progressive outlets. Some party leaders have appeared on right-wing shows and that should not be repeated. The party should not be disgraced by being associated with such buffoons as Glenn Beck.

Spanish-speaking outreach

Traditionally, the party has reached out to Spanish-speaking peoples. Recent personnel cuts have set us back. The party should return to, intensify and deepen our outreach work to Spanish-speaking peoples. Spanish-language Internet sites need further development.

Marxist education

One of the CPUSA's strengths is our understanding of Marxism and the application of this theory in political strategy and tactics.The working class desperately needs an understandable guide to classic theory and how it is relevant to their everyday life and struggles. The Little School http://tx.cpusa.org/ has made great strides in furthering Marxist education with little support from the rest of the party. Party leadership should support this effort wholeheartedly and provide needed resources to build and expand this effort. Jim Lane is providing webinars on a variety of educational topics and this new technology opens up opportunities for education and training in a convenient, inexpensive on-line environment.

Let's lead some struggles for a change

The Bush administration took the nation in a destructive direction. This provides us with countless opportunities to lead the working class.

We cannot lead the fight for the interests of the working class by just blending into the Democratic Party and trade unions. Of course, we need to work with these organizations and others and we need to take on our role as coalition and unity builders.

A labor leader once said, "The way to be a leader is to find a crowd and get out in front of it." The CPUSA can lead the masses of working people, the poor and the oppressed. Unfortunately, we have failed to get out in front and in many instances lag behind.

In short, in order for the CPUSA to grow, we need to open up and reach out to the working class. If we fail in this effort, the working class will suffer while the capitalists will notch up another victory.

This is an exciting historical period. CPUSA is uniquely positioned to use our historical materialist methodology to lead our class, the working class, forward! The dismal records of the Democrats and Republicans have failed us miserably. Working people need a party that will speak for us. We need a party that sees things from our perspective. That party is the CPUSA!

Convention Discussion: Communists in the Mass Movements

David Bell — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:45:00 -0500

Communists being involved in the mass movements for jobs, peace and health care is axiomatic and I think few if any of us would disagree. It is the quality of our role that needs thorough discussion and implementation. There are three points in John Rummel's contribution, "The movement needs to kick it up a notch," that concerns me with regard to the Party's role.

1. Comrade Rummel states, "The task of the Communist Party and other left and progressive people is to join, build and help unite these majorities to win reforms, work to see that labor and the core forces assume leadership, and allow these forces - and ourselves - to gain experience in struggle." Communists can and should always learn and gain experience, but this is nothing new. It sounds as if we communists have been sitting on our hands for the past 10 years. Far from it, we have been seriously engaged through eight years of Bush and through a hard fought election campaign. We have been struggling with most of the forces responsible for the election victory. That is precisely why we have earned the right to question the direction of the Party both ideologically and organizationally.

2. Rummel further states referring to mass rallies, "Nor was the message about drawing a line in the sand around the most militant or advanced demands. It was about activating a grass roots base to fight and win the best reform possible." There is no doubt that at some point there needs to be an assessment of what is the best possible. The problem is how one reaches the point where the "best possible" is indeed the best possible. For trade unions this often means asking for much more than is likely to be won. Communists should do no less. We are we are today in the health care debate because so called pragmatism set in even before the Democratic Party National Convention. If single payer, rather than the HCAN position became part of the election campaign at all levels, we may very well today have at the very least a public option. Don't take my word for it; listen to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others on the left. It is no accident that now the AFL‐CIO is pushing single payer. It is the job of Communists to aim higher and at the same time know when to negotiate down. This is not sectarian. This is not preaching from on high. This is from being deeply involved and having the skill to present advanced ideas while fighting for the best possible.

3. Finally, Rummel states, "It is in these broad working class movements where we can and need to build the Party. It is here where we can build our online press, have one‐on‐one discussions, meet people to invite to meetings, schools and more." It almost sounds as if we are satisfied with a "slow but steady" growth because we will continue to recruit by leaning to our neighbor and whisper who we are. What's wrong with the Party publically raising questions and contributing to the discussion as a public legal organization? I have the advantage of just listening to the health care summit. It was nauseating enough to listen to the Republicans, but to listen to bipartisan concern about budget neutral legislation to keep people healthy when we will spend over $700 billion on our killing machine is an obscenity that the Party must address in no uncertain terms. It needs to raise this is all meetings serious about funding all the programs for the people. We need to be clear in our opposition to all interventions not just the build up in Afghanistan.

Convention Discussion: What's the difference between the CPUSA and progressive Democrats?

Dan Margolis — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:41:00 -0500

A certain question has arisen relatively often during this discussion period: "What is the difference between the Communist Party USA and progressive Democrats?" Superficially, that is a good question, superficially: the CPUSA has worked to get Democrats elected, fought for health care reform with the public option, and embraced most of what organized labor has been doing.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned question is often asked rhetorically, so that the person asking can go on to say that our main contribution has to be to introduce the ideas of Marxism and of socialism, or that we should protest or condemn "the other party of capitalism." But if we were to fully embrace that strategy, we could then ask, "What's the difference between the Communist Party USA and the Workers World Party (or any number of the myriad socialist groups, which actually are hard to tell apart from each other).

The question could go further and ask why we've sometimes come out "further to the right" of the progressive Democrats. In 2006, we supported a supplemental budget bill that would have given Bush the money he needed for the Iraq war, but that attached a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, for example.

Then the question arises: If our role isn't to (only) go around talking up the need for socialism and pointing out how bad the capitalist system is, and it's also not to go further "to the left" of the progressive Democrats, then what is it? What's the point of the organization?

The most important thing that the Communist Party has to offer is strategy, based in Marxism. Everything else is secondary to that. Even talk of socialism, while important, isn't helpful unless it's in the context of short- and long-term goals, and what needs to be done now to move forward.

This strategy is outlined in the CPUSA program, "The Road to Socialism." Instead of simply pointing out the problems of capitalist society, and the need for something better, it is a nearly 90 page discussion of the various contending forces in society, how they are arranged right now, what the current power relations are, and, out of all this, what is the way to move forward towards the goal. Out of this study, the idea that there are three stages, three strategic battles that have to be fought and won, came to be embraced. With each stage of battle, there is, singled out in the document, a core enemy, an enemy that needs to be battled at the local, state and national level, and, on the other side, all of the forces that can be brought together to defeat that enemy (needless to say, the working class is always at core of these forces).

This strategic line can help to provide good tactics, and the clarity to actually win fights and move forward, in any given struggles. Also, the strategic line is based on a real understanding of society-not how we would like things to be. We know that, given the balance of forces in society, we're nowhere near a fight for socialism, and trying to move people to fight for that, or for some sort of strongly anti-monopoly program, would be a losing battle. Between here and there, there's another battle to win.

A concrete example of the usefulness of this strategy: we said that the fight for health care reform, along the lines Obama and groups like Health Care for America Now outlined, was the only step forward actually possible, given the alignment of forces-where the labor movement is, the makeup of the Senate, grassroots groups-ready to fight. Consequently, the CPUSA embraced that struggle, to the chagrin of some who thought that this was a sellout of the Single Payer movement. But, as we've seen, this is where the real fight was.

We were right about that, but what did we add? Firstly, we fought to bring people on board. As I mentioned, a number of people on the left didn't agree with this position. Secondly, and more importantly, we were able to use our strategic line to argue for what is right, to keep in perspective the real enemies. If Obama didn't do this or that, we argued why this was the case, and made it clear that he is not the enemy, at least not now; the real enemy is the Republican ultra-right. The Blue Dog Democrats, as odious as they can be, aren't the enemy either. In this and all other struggles currently, we make the point that targeting them-Obama, the Blue Dogs, etc.-simply lets the tea partiers, the CPAC people, all these types, off the hook and dilutes the movement forward.

The previously mentioned argument around funding for Bush's war in Iraq is another example. We correctly calculated that we couldn't-and can't-get Congress to simply cut off war funding, and to fight for that would be divisive to the anti-war movement. The best possible step forward was to restrain the Bush administration, and thus weaken them. In all areas, this strategy, with modifications based on local particularities, bears fruit: What is the best next step for normal U.S. ties with Cuba? To alleviate the miserable economic conditions workers in this country face? In the battle against racism? Etc.

The strategy is pro-active, as well. Having looked at the current troubles, and the demoralization that has occurred since the 2008 elections, our line is even more important: Obama and the Democrats are not the enemy; they represent better possibilities for working people than the Republicans. Still, we argue that the role of labor and its closet allies (those who are racially and nationally oppressed, women, young people) has to be increased, and that the grassroots activity on the ground needs to be increased in order to help the Democrats secure at least their best agenda; so doing would both guarantee a real defeat of the extreme right at the ballot box later in the year, and also lay the groundwork for further stages of struggle.

If there were a bigger Communist Party, even of just 10,000 members, we would likely have seen health care reform pass much easier. We would likely see the Employee Free Choice Act passing soon, and so on. Building these struggles is the best way to build the party, and, conversely, building the party is the best way to build these struggles forward, past the 2010 elections and towards an anti-corporate fight. Without an organization fighting for a good strategic line, the movement could go anywhere, but likely nowhere.

In some ways, the fact that people confuse us with progressive Democrats is good; it means that we've tapped into mainstream sentiment; we're not off in left field. I didn't join the Communist Party because of some socialist dream; I joined because I want to be involved in a fight to better society, and the Communist Party seemed, and still seems, the best vehicle for that. The fact that socialism is the outcome of such a fight is incidental to that fact. The case should be the same for the vast majority of people that we will recruit, if we play our cards right.

Convention Discussion: Critique of CPUSA Statement on International Affairs

W.T. Whitney — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:34:00 -0500

The CPUSA presents the document "World Realignments, Shifting Balance of Forces" for pre-convention discussion. This presentation of the Party's approach to international affairs gives short shrift to growing anti-imperial outrage. It offers no program relating to anti-imperialist mobilization.

The document elaborates upon tactics and methodology seen as useful for ameliorating U.S. foreign policy embarrassments. That emphasis has little to do with the concerns of many people who, horrified at imperialist excess, identify themselves as socialists. In weighing the CPUSA as a possible political home, they could come across this summary purporting "to give general direction" on international affairs. They will find little mention there of victims of U.S. imperialism: the tortured, the imprisoned, the starving, the migrating, and the wounded and killed in U.S. wars.

This document intended for an audience of Party members carries the burden of representing Party positions on world affairs to outside activists. Other Party literature is not available. Potential recruits are thus left with the message that they leave outrage on hold while buying into scripted, well, rehearsed tactical maneuvers aimed at gaining for the Party a foothold within the ranks of political moderates, a vantage point seen as useful for exerting pressure on susceptible powerbrokers.

That's one turn-off for new people. Another is condescension. The document notes that "many progressives... have found [it] difficult to navigate" the current "very difficult political landscape" serving as backdrop for U.S. foreign policy. That's a diagnosis of diminished analytical skills of a piece with belittling of people's strategic thinking, as in "some narrow left elements," the document's characterization of critics of current U.S. foreign policies. Evidently for the Party discussion and promotion of trust are not high priority items. The authors presume to ask "the peace movement and other social movements" to accept the Party's "kind of strategic and tactical thinking."

The document contains points of analysis couched in generalities straying far enough from realities as to put readers on guard, or mislead. Anti-imperial struggle is relegated to the sidelines. For example:

"Most countries in Latin America have to one degree or another rejected neo-liberalism," one reads. True, but for protecting gains and moving ahead, popular movements need recipes for confronting national economic dependence on multi-national corporations and for breaking bonds between local capitalists and their U.S. counterparts.

There is "growing pressure [on] U.S. imperialism" to reduce military power, "act on climate change," and "take responsibility" for poverty. True, but the reality is of expanding wars, widening poverty, and a disastrous Copenhagen Climate Summit, brought down by capitalist manipulations.

"Ongoing humanitarian crises" have served to "raise tensions and aggravate division" in Gaza. True, but death and dying predominate.

"U.S. diplomatic efforts propelled by "progressives or center left forces" attend to Iran, North Korea, and Palestine. True, but war clouds thicken

"In quick succession, left or left-center led governments have come to power" in 11 Latin American governments." All true, except that two have turned to the right. The document correctly names business and banking oligarchs, military hierarchies, and the Church as villains. It criticizes new U.S. bases in Colombia and waffling on the Honduran coup. There is no hint, however, of reaching out for allies among mass peasant, indigenous, environmental, and political groups in Latin America, especially ones disposed toward regional integration and anti-imperialism.

The document offers a short list of items predisposing to left politics in Latin America, but leaves out nationalization of natural resources, land reform, regionalization of banking and telecommunications, and cross border literacy and health care projects.

Maybe there is a "greater 'feel' for the peoples of Africa" these days in Washington. But on tour there last year, the U.S. Secretary of State pitched U.S. - African business ties, and the government recently instituted major funding hikes for the military's U.S. Africa Command.

The Party document glosses over U.S. complicity in the Honduras coup and is overly optimistic about U.S. congressional efforts to end the anti-Cuban blockade.

In an excess of caution and narrow focus, its authors shy away from examining new social and political phenomena through the lens of Marxist analysis. Chief among them are burgeoning hegemony of multinational corporations, ascendency of finance capital, the growing north-south wealth divide, and a worldwide migratory crisis.

Loss of land available for food production for local populations deserves special attention. While a billion people are hungry, rich nations are grabbing up farmland in the global south to assure their own food and bio-fuel security. Their corporations are subjecting millions of acres to industrial agriculture, agro-chemicals, and genetically modified biologic products. They control food production from seed to sales, undersell local farmers, and prevent them from planting renewable crops. Drought and flooding triggered by climate change compound matters. The prospect is of starvation, mass migrations, and destruction of soil resources. The remedy lies with political mobilization on a global scale.

This CPUSA document expresses confidence that the U.S. labor movement will help "strengthen international working class solidarity," especially if bolstered by the experience and involvement of U.S. Communists. That hope is not groundless, what with labor's record of mobilization against bilateral so-called free trade agreements, support for Mexican, Colombian, and Iraqi unionists, and formerly joining in on anti apartheid struggle. There is no hint offered, however, that decent lives for the world's laboring masses might play a role in easing wage pressures on U.S. workers. Nor is there a bow to organizing cross border workers in tandem with building ties to unions in their countries of origin.

In 1920 W.E. B. Dubois set the stage for U. S. and European labor movements backing away from frontline international militancy. They would benefit from social democratic reforms, he anticipated. Many industrialists with an eye toward profiteering from exploitation of cheap, docile labor forces in the global South would accept the welfare state. Lots of grateful, northern white workers would accommodate, he suggested. (Monthly Review, "Souls of White Folks," Nov. 2003)

One clear sign of anti-imperialist weakness marring the Party document is the void left by no recommendations for action. Outsiders, including possible recruits, will look in vain for calls for organization, campaigns, and solidarity actions. This critique concludes by listing necessary tasks and projects:

Party members should actively support groups defending food sovereignty, environmental sustainability, and migrant rights from an anti-imperialist perspective.
Members and the Party itself will act with other activist groups to oppose U.S. overseas bases and militarization. They will join campaigns to end U.S. war and war making in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Colombia, and Somalia.
The Party responds to U.S. assaults on socialist and people - centered governments.
The Party educates and organizes around adverse humanitarian consequences of U.S. foreign policies.
The Party defends Palestinians under Israeli siege and opposes U.S. complicity with Israeli aggression.
The Party educates, organizes, and protests on behalf of U.S. prisoners abroad who are legally and physically abused.
The Party protests the U.S. Cuban economic blockade. It fights to free the Cuban Five prisoners, emblematic victims of U.S. imperialism.

Convention Discussion: Imperialism enters the 21st Century: Latin America

Emile Schepers — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:24:00 -0500

After one year of the new administration, high hopes for a significant improvement of relations between the United States and Latin America have been disappointed.

This is a shame. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama promised a new start in which he would meet U.S. adversaries, including Raul Castro Hugo Chavez "without preconditions". He was fiercely attacked for this by Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

In March 2009, the Obama White House pointedly refused to interfere in presidential elections in El Salvador, won by the left's candidate. This was a welcome break from the practices of the Bush administration and its threats against Salvadoran immigrants.

At the Summit of the Americans in Trinidad in April, Obama's conciliatory speech was well received. Raul Castro offered to take Obama up on his offer to meet without preconditions, and hinted that Cuba would consider exchanging the "Cuba 5" for jailed so-called "dissidents".

When president Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in June 2009, Obama said that the United States opposed the coup and considered Zelaya to be the legitimate president. There was heavy U.S. involvement in preparing the coup, but many thought maybe Obama would now turn things around.

Then things began to go downhill.

When the Organization of American States called for sanctions against the coup regime in Honduras, Secretary of State Clinton broke with majority opinion and ran a diplomatic sideshow with Costa Rican president Oscar Arias as "mediator". Although Zelaya felt he had no choice but to accept this, the coup regime used the "mediation" as a mechanism to run out the clock so that elections scheduled for November 29 would take place with an illegal regime still in power, repressing Zelaya supporters. The U.S. then, at the last minute, found a pretext to announce that it would recognize the results of the election no matter what happened. It failed to refute a boast by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that it had dumped Zelaya in exchange for Republican approval for two State Department appointments.
A bigger shocker was the announcement that the United States would be leasing 7 military bases in Colombia. The Columbian government is a far right-wing, narco-mafia infiltrated regime which breaks all records for human rights violations against workers and peasants. There is fear that the continuation of the Bush administration's close alliance with Colombia represents a danger to the stability Colombia's neighbors. The U.S. move undermines efforts to promote a peaceful settlement to the Colombian civil war. As a senator, Obama had opposed the planned Colombia free trade agreement because of concerns about human rights, but in his State of the Union message he hinted he would now push ahead with it.
Initially, the Obama administration made minor adjustments to the U.S. blockade of Cuba but has not moved an inch since. In the fall U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice made a speech against the annual General Assembly vote against the Cuba blockade which was full of misinformation and an insult all the 185 countries that voted "yes".
Bush remobilized the Fourth Fleet to patrol Latin American waters and the Obama administration has not reversed this. The United States has continued to harshly criticize and pressure the left wing governments of the region.

This has led to a general rise in tensions between the U.S. administration and the left and left-center governments. This is why there was so much suspicion of the U.S. move to send 20,000 troops to Haiti after the earthquake.

There is much at stake. Since the election of Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela in 1999, there has been a steady movement to the left in the region. Particularly important has been the creation of new mechanisms of horizontal integration, including the left-wing Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of America (ALBA). ALBA has been very successful in initiating a dynamic whereby countries of the region can escape from imperialist hegemony and dump the "Washington Consensus" of "free" trade, privatization and austerity.

The group of left-center and left leaders who have come to power is heterogeneous, and their roots are not "Marxist-Leninist". However, the changes have been brought about by enormous mass mobilizations at the base, and thus have deep roots. This may be the best news for the left worldwide since the fall of the USSR.

We can't expect Obama to become an "anti-imperialist" president. This is not his orientation. Besides, imperialism is not a policy but the way the world is organized today and it can't be stopped by flipping a switch in the Oval Office.

But we have a responsibility to demand a more realistic attitude on the part of the administration, which would entail talking to the left-wing governments and blocs with a tone of equality and respect, rather than bullying and destabilization.

The Obama administration has not so much continued Bush policies as returned to those of Bill Clinton. No bombing or invasion, but heavy handed economic and diplomatic pressure to isolate the left and maintain U.S. corporate dominance. Bush was so awful we sometimes forget how bad Clinton was, especially on Cuba.

Our Party has generally embraced Lenin's concept of imperialism and believed that it is our duty to fight against it in solidarity with the masses in the countries it victimizes. This is central to working class internationalism, and, for us, bedrock principle.

In the late 40's our Secretary General, Earl Browder, wrongly concluded that the U.S.-Soviet-British alliance in World War II would continue indefinitely and promoted the idea that U.S. corporate penetration in Latin America was benign. But post-Roosevelt administrations initiated a phase in which hundreds of thousands died at the hands of U.S. supported right wing regimes. The CIA ran amuck.

Since then, the CPUSA has played a vital role in all the anti-imperialist solidarity movements. Though our numbers are small, we often provide the only real links to the working class and masses. Recent advances in U.S. labor on peace and international affairs are partly a result of our patient work over decades.

So what we do is vitally important.

We must not let the fact that we must support Obama on many domestic issues confuse us as to what his and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy actually is. This could weaken our anti-imperialist solidarity work. In this respect, the "Main Discussion Document: U.S. Politics at a Transition Point" is overly sanguine in its characterization of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

Further, mass opinion clearly supports a peaceful, cooperative policy toward our neighbors. The pressure to keep trying to isolate Cuba and intervene in Colombia comes from the corporations, not the grassroots.

Yes, the Republicans are worse, and no doubt pressure from the right affects Obama foreign policy. But if there is no counter-pressure from the left, what will be the logical result?

There can be no letup on our part in opposition to U.S. military bases and other forms of intervention, in Colombia and elsewhere, and support for a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries that want to strike out on a new course without asking Uncle Sam's permission.

Happy International Women's Day

Communist Party USA — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:25:00 -0500

It was the courage of hundreds of women shirtwaist workers that inspired International Women's Day. They walked off the job for better wages and the right to vote in 1909, striking for 13 weeks in a bitter cold New York winter. At the Second International Conference of Socialist Women in 1910, one hundred years ago, German Communist Clara Zetkin proposed that March 8 be set aside each year for solidarity with women workers around the world. Since 1977 International Women's Day has been recognized and celebrated by the United Nations.

Like May Day, International Women's Day is borne of the struggles of the U.S. working class for decent wages and working conditions and equal rights.

The centennial anniversary of International Women's Day takes place in the midst of a devastating global economic crisis.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports growing long-term unemployment for women ages 45 to 64. Official unemployment for female heads-of-households is 12.6 percent. About 1.1 million are single mothers. For some, the only income is food stamps. As poverty rises, these are crisis conditions.

The continuing wage gap plus low wage jobs with not enough hours and lack of adequate health care put women at the bottom economically. Income is even lower for African American, Latino, Asian and Native American women as a result of racism.

The Machinists union has issued a call for women across the country to "join together in telling Congress, America needs JOBS Now!" on Monday, March 8. Women are urged to send a message to their Senators and Representative to support the program of JOBS Now! for a substantial new stimulus package that will aid states and cities, and create jobs for public works on a large scale.

The right to join a union is a strong antidote to poverty. Union women earn 32 percent more than nonunion women, African American union members earn 28 percent more than their nonunion counterparts, for Latino workers, the union advantage equals 43 percent and for Asian American workers, the union advantage is 6 percent.

Women are a key part of the broad alliance that elected President Barack Obama. The right-wing did everything to split off women, including the candidacy of Sarah Palin. But in the end, the majority of women did not vote for a candidate who opposed reproductive rights and workers rights. They voted for the candidate that represented a change in direction away from the extreme right-wing.

The first bill that President Obama signed into law, the Lily Ledbetter bill, protected the rights of women to take action against wage discrimination. Now much more is required.

Health care is expected to come up for vote soon, and hopefully can break through the logjam of the Republicans and conservative Democratic supporters.

The most significant thing that can be done to uphold the meaning of International Women's Day is to restore and rebuild the grass roots movement that elected President Obama around the issues. The five-point jobs program of the AFL-CIO and Jobs for America Now is an excellent starting point that can make a difference in people's lives.

The labor movement understands that women represent an important sector against reaction. They are embracing and reaching out to women workers who now make up half the workforce. Unity of the coalition is number one if the cause of women and all ordinary people is to be moved forward.

"Just like women 100 years ago, women in America-and around the world-are fighting back," says the proclamation of the AFL-CIO Executive Council. "On this year's anniversary of International Women's Day, we recommit ourselves to continue to the struggle for equal rights, dignity and respect for all working women while paying close attention to women's concerns in our fight to create jobs."

Here! Here!

Photo: International Women's Day march, London 2008. http://www.flickr.com/photos/katjung/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Convention Discussion: Summary of Northern California CP Membership Discussion

Northern California Communist Party — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:10:00 -0500

Discussion Summary, Northern California
Communist Party membership meeting, January 30, 2010

Preconvention discussion: U.S. Politics at a Transition Point:

After a showing of National Chairman Sam Webb's discussion kick-off presentation (available at www.cpusa.org, 29th convention, Discussion kickoff), discussion included the following observations:

The meeting agreed with the main discussion document as presented by the national chairman that the immediate strategic goal remains the decisive defeat of the extreme right in order to consolidate the 2008 election victory. In this connection, comrades exchanged ideas over how our members can better coordinate their efforts to help strengthen the progressive forces in the coalition to defeat the Republicans in this year's midterm congressional elections.
There were also expressions of dissatisfaction with the role of conservative Democrats who cater to the Republicans and the need, where possible, to encourage challenges in the primaries.
The comrades responded enthusiastically to the proposal in Chairman Webb's presentation making the fight for jobs and immediate relief the main struggle before the people and our Party at this moment. Members continue to be engaged in the legislative fight for health care reform.
Along with addressing immediate needs of the working class, it is important to recognize that the capitalist system is broken and lacks its former ability to make "fixes."
As we work with others in coalitions addressing the immediate crisis, comrades devoted much attention to other related aspects of our work. They felt as communists that we also need to project the next, anti-monopoly stage of development and discuss socialism more.
Comrades recognized the current crisis offers many new opportunities to increase "anti-capitalist consciousness" and to build the party and YCL. We need to participate in coalitions as open communists whenever possible.
New methods of communication are greatly expanding our ability to build among young people especially.
We should consider running more candidates, including communist candidates.
We need much more discussion of the relation between race and class, and more concrete actions to help individuals overcome the crises they are experiencing.
We should help build the support that is growing for "tax the rich" initiatives at national and state levels, as alternatives to growing deficits or slashed human needs spending.

National campaign for jobs now:

Scott Marshall, CPUSA national Labor Secretary and national jobs campaign coordinator, joined us by phone to describe the Jobs for America Now labor-led coalition of over 65 national organizations, including both labor federations and major civil rights, women's, church and other organizations. Details are available at www.jobs4americanow.org. The AFL-CIO's 5-point America Needs Jobs Now program is part of this effort.

The coalition encompasses literally thousands of actions around the country, from union unemployed committees and grassroots efforts to organize the unemployed, through food pantries, homeless shelters, anti-foreclosure actions and more. It is urgent to further strengthen grassroots activity.

Among other urgent issues are reversing the destruction of the national welfare safety net during the Clinton administration, and pressing senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, to include extension of unemployment compensation in the Senate version of the Jobs for Main Street Act, passed by the House of Representatives late last year.

CP members around the country are helping to organize local labor and peace movement-based actions to build local government support of the AFL-CIO's 5-point program and the House jobs bill. Also, support upcoming Jobs with Justice actions, link jobs creation to ending wars and military adventures, and protest business groups' opposition to jobs creation measures and to the Employee Free Choice Act.

In Chicago the steelworker retiree organization SOAR started a petition for jobs or income now, calling on the federal government to create jobs when the private sector does not, and extend unemployment compensation to first-time job seekers and for the duration of any unemployment.

A national week of action is planned, March 1-6.

Clubs were urged to plan the ways in which they can become engaged at the grassroots in helping to build this broad nationwide effort. Ideas from the discussion included:

Collecting and circulating information on services available to unemployed people and welfare recipients. We should consider developing a resource center, and distributing information at welfare offices, food pantries, unemployment offices etc.
Publicize the Jobs for Main Street legislation passed by the House of Representatives.
Give attention to the "green jobs" sector which holds promise of good jobs in fixed locations that can be available to workers with challenges to employment.
The fight for jobs is crucial to overcoming the economic crisis and to mobilizing for success in the November 2010 elections.

Youth Internet Club:

A new youth local Internet club plans local actions and is initiating an Internet organization where people interested in the CP and YCL's ideas can interact without necessarily joining them at first. The new youth collective will participate in the March 4 education actions, March 20 anti-war demonstrations and solidarity with Rite Aid warehouse workers fighting for a first contract.

Convention Discussion: The movement needs to kick it up a notch

John Rummel — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:59:00 -0500

I am not one who thinks a deteriorating political climate will open more opportunities to advance a left agenda. If that had been the case, the ascension of the far right to positions of power from the 80's on would have resulted in major victories for working people. The reverse was the case.

We began to reverse that deteriorating climate with the election campaign and victory of Barack Obama. It gave hope and set in motion a broad grouping of people's organizations, labor in the first place, that began to challenge the dominance of the Republican far right and its anti-people ideology.

Today we are in a very dangerous period. The President is in the bulls-eye of racist, anti-labor, anti-people forces who wish to maintain the status quo. The attacks on him are growing in their viciousness. If the right succeeds in their efforts to block even the smallest initiatives, it will be a horrible setback with possible severe consequences.

The movement that came together to elect the President needs to kick it up a notch or two.

Anyone who attended the recent nationwide rallies organized by labor, healthcare and a broad array of women's, peace, environmental and other people's organizations would have witnessed a new level of activity and organizational unity. The rallies were organized around jobs, health care reform, immigration reform, peace, clean energy and more.

This is the people's movement from which progressive change will come. The more it is activated, the greater the potential for victories.

The message coming from these rallies was not "let's go after the President" or "let's go after the Democratic Party." Instead, the message given was the people need relief and we expect Congress to deliver.

Nor was the message about drawing a line in the sand around the most militant or advanced demands. It was about activating a grass roots base to fight and win the best reform possible.

Yes, anger was expressed at Democrats who have not stood their ground. But in the main, anger was directed at the insurance companies, Wall St. the far right and the Republican Party - the political party that best represents corporate interests.

Change comes from actions involving, or having the support of, broad majorities. The task of the Communist Party and other left and progressive people is to join, build and help unite these majorities to win reforms, work to see that labor and the core forces assume leadership, and allow these forces - and ourselves - to gain experience in struggle.

Do Communists add something to these movements that others do not? We do if we don't work in sectarian ways. I have never been to a meeting where I didn't think how the presence of few more Communists would help strengthen the organization.

We bring our strategic policy of how to win. Communists ask the question, "Who is the main enemy holding back progress and what can we do to unite the broadest forces to defeat them?"

It is in these broad working class movements where we can and need to build the Party. It is here where we can build our online press, have one-on-one discussions, meet people to invite to meetings, schools and more.

For several decades the CPUSA has correctly focused on the role played by the far right and its control of the Republican Party.

In the 1980's former Party chair Gus Hall spoke of an "all peoples front against Reaganism" that included the Democratic Party and sections of monopoly.

Going further back in history the writers of the Manifesto spoke of Communists in Germany uniting with the bourgeoisie against the monarchy.

In the coming legislative and political battles working people and their allies will wage, it will be wise to keep this in mind: progress will not come from the defeat of President Obama; a growing far-right menace will only be emboldened.

Standing apart from this movement or pointing out its weaknesses - surprise, surprise, it is not "perfect" - would only isolate and make us irrelevant.

As one activist told me recently, it is not the President who needs to get a "spine" it is we who have to be the Presidents spine. "I think he would appreciate it," she said.

Convention Discussion: For Truth and Reconciliation

Ari Goldman — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:51:00 -0500

At a recent gathering of socialist-minded folk, we were all left uncharacteristically speechless when one seasoned activist stated (I paraphrase), "You should know that I no longer call myself a socialist. It's not for me a useful term. People associate that word with too much historical baggage, and frankly, crimes against humanity. Let's face it: None of us, as Americans, would be content to live as citizens in any of the so-called socialist countries in the world today. These days I present myself simply as a humanist trying to do my part to better the human condition."

These words are most sobering for us on the left and need to be understood. We may self-righteously cite the ravages of McCarthyism and the historic success of capitalism at derailing all attempts to form a legitimate socialist or labor party in the United States, but in the end we still have to face the fact that the history of our movement worldwide has done at least as much disservice as good. It is fine and proper to cite our militant defense of civil rights and liberties, our early and fervent opposition to fascism, our contributions to winning the Second World War, the rebuilding of state and industrial infrastructure in Eastern Europe after the ravages of war, aid to anti-colonialists in Africa and Asia, strong defense of humanity in our protests against war and nuclear weapons, etc., etc. All this is great-truly great-and should never be forgotten.

At the same time we also have the negative legacy to contend with: egregious violations of person and principle, of religious, cultural and national freedoms, of socialist ideals, leading to many millions of episodes of individual assassinations, mass starvation, unjust imprisonment, exile, repression, and the rise of privilege under the guise of party and class. That the worldwide capitalist class has exploited these events to denigrate the very idea of socialism is undeniable, yet we minimize this history at our own peril. For if and as we do, we take on the coloration of apologists and deniers and thus weaken our profile amongst a world of activists who look to our ideas for answers.

Communists in particular must own this burden, for the largest share of these crimes were committed under regimes led by Communist parties. The "crimes of socialism" are not, after all, the onus of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the other more enlightened social democratic countries of Europe.

One reads the Communist press, and articles and books by Communist authors, and there, to be sure, can discover from time to time, some expressions of distance from the "mistakes and excesses" of those regimes, some disavowal of these "exceptions to socialist norms" and other such euphemisms. When our critics say we have never publicly denounced these crimes, we are often reduced to saying, "Not true. We issued a formal Party statement on that in December 1974," or some such mealy-mouthed, unconvincing mumbling.

It is high time to be bolder about our idealism, and more adamant, consistent and public about reviewing the history of "actually existing socialism" in such a way that no reader, no activist, no one browsing our websites, could possibly mistake us today as defenders of a criminal past. We must commission our best minds to develop clear and inspirational language and policies that affirm the successes of the socialist experiment past and present, while firmly separating ourselves from its all too many inglorious pages.

Such statements and links should be permanently available on our websites and incorporated into the thinking and activism of our membership. Although we are in fact the successor generation to 90 years of the American Communist movement, we need to present ourselves to the world as fresh, original thinkers building a hopeful, secure future, but unafraid to face the ugly truths of our past. We need, if you will, to launch and sustain our own Truth and Reconciliation process that will continually evolve a self-critical attitude of "best practices" of socialist work. If we maintain our silence and our resistance to revisiting the sordid side of our socialist past, we will remain forever subject to capitalist finger-pointing, and in a way they will be right. Let us finesse them by airing our own honest and difficult assessment and doing our part to restore the good name of socialism.

African American Equality: Video Discussion with Jarvis Tyner

Jarvis Tyner — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:51:00 -0500

For Black History Month we are presenting a national live broadcast of a presentation by CPUSA Executive Vice-Chair Jarvis Tyner on African American Equality. The brief presentation will be followed by answers to questions from participants.

African American Equality
Convention Discussion Presentation
with Jarvis Tyner
Tues, Feb 23, 2010
8pm Eastern time

This live event is now over. You can watch the archive video below.

Convention Discussion: The 'old bug' of opportunism returns

Mark Anderson — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:00 -0500

Although Marxist-Leninist terminology has fallen out of vogue with the top leadership of our Party, there's no avoiding the use of precise, scientific language if one is to analyze contemporary phenomena from a Communist point of view. To do so would be like trying to have a discussion of Newtonian physics without using words like force or matter.

For several years our Party has been suffering from the corrosive effects of what Marx, Lenin and other Marxists called opportunism, specifically right opportunism. This was not name-calling on their part, but was instead an attempt to define a historically determined phenomenon that persists to this day.

Former CPUSA chairman Gus Hall, in a 1979 article titled "Opportunism: the Destructive Germ," defined right opportunism as "an unnecessary and unprincipled accommodation and, in the end, a capitulation to the enemy. It is a sacrificing of the longer-term and more basic interests of the working class and the people behind the guise of getting concessions on some immediate questions."

He called opportunism a recurrent "virus," an "old bug," that the Party, surrounded as it is by bourgeois pressures, had to constantly be on guard against.

Generally speaking, right opportunism means sacrificing principle for short-term gains. It means an excessive readiness to make compromises with the capitalist class at the expense of the working class, to "get along" with capitalist order, to "go with the flow" and work for small changes around the edges rather than for fundamental change. It's closely related to the concept of reformism.

The "left" variant of opportunism is characterized by sectarian phrase-mongering detached from the real world, whose objective effect is to perpetuate the established order much like its right variant does.

Historically, right opportunism has been the primary danger within the CPUSA. In its most extreme form, it led to the dissolution of the Party under the leadership of Earl Browder in the 1940s. It also badly split the Party in 1991 when a right-opportunist faction tried to capture the leadership of the Party and transform it into a reformist, social-democratic association.

The right-opportunist affliction in our Party today is manifested in several ways, most notably in a de-emphasizing of the class struggle.

For example, instead of helping the working class understand that its interests are irreconcilably opposed to the monopoly capitalist class, and organizing to wage struggle on that basis, the right-opportunist trend advocates all-class unity against political conservatives in a classless "battle for democracy."

It places strategic emphasis on supporting more liberal or "enlightened" elements of the ruling, capitalist class as the lesser of two evils, particularly in the electoral arena, until such time as the conservatives or the "ultra-right" are decisively defeated. What would constitute such a decisive defeat is never spelled out, however. Even now, with a Democratic president and strong Democratic majority in Congress, advocates of this approach insist it must be retained.

To justify its position, this trend invokes Georgi Dimitrov's theory of the popular front against fascism in the 1930s, and a variant of that position developed by CPUSA leaders in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan came to power. Yet this trend is quick to point out that we do not have fascism today, nor does it appear to be imminent.

In practice, this all-class strategy means that the Party refrains from criticizing its would-be capitalist-class allies, mutes its criticism of the big monopolies (e.g. refrains from calling for their nationalization), exaggerates the significance of differences within the ruling class, and plays down basic Marxist concepts like the class character of the capitalist state.

One result of this approach is a blunting of working-class consciousness and socialist consciousness, and a weakening of the Party's fighting spirit.

Among other right-opportunist ideas afflicting our Party are these:

The capitalist system is not moribund, as Lenin said, but is relatively strong. It is not in general crisis. Therefore, the U.S. party's strategy should be solely to win attainable reforms within the system rather than advocate capitalism's revolutionary replacement with socialism.
Anti-monopoly strategy, let alone anti-capitalist propaganda, is too advanced for this stage of struggle, and the main focus should instead be on rebuffing the most extreme right and the Republican Party.
Historically, socialism has shown itself to be unable to solve economic and social problems. Central planning is a failure; a market-oriented economy is the way to go. It's not even clear anymore what socialism is.
The class struggle has ceased to be the central pivot around which all questions revolve.
Racism and national oppression are gradually receding. It is no longer necessary to aggressively push for affirmative action.
Issues of discrimination, anti-Semitism, and the struggle for the full equality of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific and Arab Americans, LGBT, women, and youth no longer requires special attention. Party Commissions and special demands on these questions are unnecessary.
The term "U.S. imperialism" is too simplistic. The U.S. government, especially under President Obama, can play a positive and humanitarian role in world politics. For this reason it is permissible for the U.S. military and NATO forces to occupy other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, impose "democratic" reforms, and secure neoliberal economic advantages. Peace and solidarity work is therefore not as important as it once was.
Electoral politics should be limited to work within the Democratic Party. Any attempt to go outside the two-party system is sectarian and futile. Running candidates on the Communist Party ticket is especially narrow and self-defeating.
The CPUSA is bogged down by dogmatism, sectarianism and rigidity. Many of the stock slanders of the Party are indeed justified. It may not survive unless it abandons its outdated dogmas, including the dogma that it should play a leading, vanguard role.
The Party should emulate social democracy and seek to merge with the broad left. The "Communist plus" should be given a quiet burial, and Marxist-Leninist education and literature (including a printed news paper) are relatively unimportant. Strong party organization is no longer necessary.

The basis for the growth and development of this negative, right-opportunist trend in our Party consists of several elements, including: (1) the relatively long period of the capitalist system's expansion, at least until the most recent crisis, and the resulting ideological pressures of ruling-class ideology; (2) the continuing ideological fallout from the demise of the USSR and the Eastern European socialist countries, (3) the weak class composition of our own Party -- the insufficient number of workers in the leadership and membership (a number being further reduced by the passing away of many working-class Party veterans); (4) the inadequate theoretical training of the party membership in the basics of Marxism-Leninism, a problem compounded by the traditional U.S. baggage of "pragmatism" and "American exceptionalism"; (5) the broader influence of reformism and opportunism in the working-class movement; and (6) the corrosive influence of the Party's extensive private property holdings, particularly in real estate, which now account for the vast majority of its operating revenue.

Defeating this retrograde trend within our Party is an absolutely essential task. Without its defeat, there can be no successful struggle for socialism.

Convention Discussion: Some Observations

Emil Shaw — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:48:00 -0500

There are many things that are very positive and true in the analysis of both the preconvention committee and Sam, such as the concept of three stages of political development in our drive towards socialism. The challenge to our party to become more deeply involved in mass struggles is absolutely correct. The concept of a popular movement with the working class and the nationally oppressed peoples at the center of such a movement is basic. Further, the comment about the possibilities of a backward movement in the struggle for reforms is also very important.

However, not enough attention so far has been paid to the growing massive discontent with the reform efforts of the Obama administration. If we are Marxists, one of our tasks should be to seek to explain certain contradictions in real life between what appears to be reform and what is not. In making this effort, we will be making a contribution to the millions of people seeking to get answers as to why things are so disappointing. As Dimitrov and others have pointed out, during times of economic crisis where millions of people are out of work, it is not a given that all of these masses will automatically turn towards progress and socialism. In fact, the real problem is that some will move in a progressive direction and many others will move in a reactionary direction. In this they will be lured by demagogic promises by the ultra-right. Thus, we see today the phenomenon of the Teabaggers, where many people who attend these rallies, when queried, express contradictory views about the political scene. As noted, on the one hand they oppose the big government, but on the other hand they like their Medicare and Social Security.

We can't walk away from a deeper analysis of these reactionary trends. To do so will ultimately cause us many problems. The masses of people both in the progressive movement and in the conservative movement are perplexed by the contradictions of the Obama administration. They are further frustrated by the insufficient efforts to solve the unemployment crisis and the housing crisis. The shortcomings of the proposed health care bill is another item of deep frustration, even though many negative features of this legislation have been brought on by the efforts and maneuverings of the Republicans in Congress.

We can't walk away from or cover up the fact that Obama ran on a program and slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" and yet the outcome has been quite different from what people expected. The slogan had different meanings for different sections of the population. For workers, it meant real health care reform, more job security, and the right to organize. For others it meant tax relief and assistance to small entrepreneurs in developing their businesses. For women, it meant a struggle to preserve the right for them to control their own bodies, and for the peace movement, it meant an end to the war in Iraq.

Since the end of the campaign, the results have been quite different. For one thing, Obama's insistence on developing a so-called just war in Afghanistan is now coming to fruition, with human losses both in the United States and abroad. On the health care front, despite the fact that Obama has expressed publicly his support for the idea of single payer, in practice he has stated that single payer is off the table. When we consider the various compromises made in the effort to get the health care bill out of Congress, it gives pause to the question, why did the president not take a stronger position to shape the process?

Further, despite small efforts at preserving jobs in the auto industry, many people are frustrated and angry at the stimulus packages. They see millions of dollars being given to banks and corporations without these corporations using the funds to help the people. Instead, they quietly pocket the money to enrich their own stockholders. The straw that breaks the camel's back is the reported excesses of CEO golden parachute packages at a time when masses of people are facing cuts in social services, loss of their homes and unemployment. These contradictions become the fuel for the right wing to make propaganda to undo the Obama reform efforts.

To simply gloss over these defects, despite the fact that the PW has consistently reported on these defects, does not help things, either in our contribution to the mass struggle or in the development of an understanding of where we're going. Even though we are in full support of every effort by the Obama administration for relief of the people's problems, it is still important in a Marxist sense to analyze the contradictions between what is proposed and the results. In doing so we will undercut the "great man" theory of Obama doing all things by himself. It is important that people not rely too much on what is proposed or to expect greater positive results. Obama, despite his progressive projections, is still a representative of one section of the capitalist class. He seems to represent that group that feels compelled to seek a better solution to the United States' economic and social problems than the previous administration. The fact of the enormous deficit and the outstanding debt to countries such as China plays a major part in the development of Obama's foreign and domestic policies. If we can begin to grasp the fact that as far as Obama is concerned, " the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," if we can begin to grasp the fact that despite his progressive background and despite a number of positive moves that he has so far made such as the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he is still a representative of a section of the ruling class, we can then begin to plan strategy and tactics that will enable the administration to move forward in a progressive direction and to reduce its effort to go in an opposite direction.

Los comunistas norteamericanos se organizan para la Convención Nacional

John Rummel — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:57:00 -0500

El Partido Comunista de los Estados Unidos (PCUSA) está planificando su 29ava Convención Nacional, que tendrá lugar durante el fin de semana del 21 al 23 de mayo, en su sede nacional, en la ciudad de Nueva York.

La Convención se realiza en el contexto de lo que puede ser un momento decisivo en la historia de nuestro país. Que se alcance o no ese momento decisivo o queden satisfechas las expectativas del 2008, todo dependerá de la cimentación de un amplio y progresista movimiento dirigido por los trabajadores, que sea capaz de derrotar el obstruccionismo Republicano y la extrema derecha reaccionaria.

Por eso, esta no puede ser una Convención ordinaria. Los cuatro meses que faltan para la Convención serán el escenario de una oleada de actividades que involucrarán discusiones y acciones y cuyo objetivo será de construir dicho movimiento.

Nuevas tecnologías, entre las cuales el uso de videos y teleconferencias facilitarán que tengamos discusiones participativas durante la Convención. No solamente las palabras escritas, sino también las palabras dichas serán parte de nuestras discusiones en la preconvención y permitirán una mejor participación de los miembros y amigos.

El lanzamiento tuvo lugar el pasado jueves 21 de enero, con una emisión en línea en directo, "El camino hacia el futuro no es fácil, pero llegaremos", del Presidente del Partido, Sam Webb, presentando los principales documentos de discusión de la Convención. Luego habrá en vivo una sesión de preguntas y respuestas. La presentación está disponible en nuestra página: cpusa.org

La discusión del documento principal es un llamado a construir una amplia coalición, dirigida por los trabajadores, en lucha por empleos, paz e igualdad, para conquistar reformas progresistas que vayan desde la reforma del sistema de salud a los derechos de los inmigrantes.

Esto es particularmente un llamado a actuar en torno a la crisis económica. Nuestro período de preconvención está teniendo lugar en medio de la peor crisis desde la Gran Depresión y por eso el partido considera que sus documentos y discusiones deben traducirse en acción.

Consideramos una prioridad trabajar para lanzar la campaña Jobs 4 America Now, organizada por las organizaciones de trabajadores, de derechos civiles y democráticas.

El documento también hace un llamado a expandir el partido Comunista, la Liga Juvenil Comunista, que son organizaciones comprometidas en construir la más profunda unidad a favor de los cambios democráticos y socialistas.

La próxima presentación en vivo del Partido Comunista de Estados Unidos a través del Web será en febrero. Se presentará el vicepresidente del Partido, Jarvis Tyner y versará sobre la igualdad afroamericana. En marzo, Scout Marshal, presidente de la Comisión Sindical, moderará una discusión acerca de la lucha por los empleos. Los eventos a través del Web son abiertos a todas las personas que deseen participar. No se requiere ser miembro del Partido.

Otras discusiones y documentos están siendo preparados, tales como la reciente propuesta sobre la religión, presentada por nuestra comisión. Se organizan igualmente discusiones en todo el país. Para mayor información, comunicarse con: cpusa@cpusa.org

Además de los seminarios y sesiones plenarias sobre variados temas, l Convención de mayo revisará el trabajo y la política del Partido y elegirá a los nuevos dirigentes.

La Convención será un excitante acontecimiento, que incluirá una celebración cultural nocturna, un meeting, saludos de parte de funcionarios electos dirigentes sindicales y de otras organizaciones de masas y una conmemoración multimedia por los 90 años de fundación del Partido Comunista.

Se esperan más de 200 delegados e invitados que vienen desde Alaska a Maine y desde Texas a Dakota del Norte. Los documentos de discusión están disponibles en la página de Web del Partido. Un folleto traducido al español estará listo desde febrero.

Discusión en la Convención: El Programa del Partido en un Periodo de Transición

29th Convention Organizing Committee — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:26:00 -0500

Descargue el PDF

El Camino hacia el Socialismo EUA es el programa básico del Partido Comunista y fue adoptado en la 28ª Convención Nacional del 2005. Este documento, que da la guía estratégica para el Partido, permanece esencialmente intacto pero han sucedido cambios trascendentales en las áreas económicas y electorales del país y se necesita de un ajuste en los elementos del programa.

Como en otros programas previamente adoptados por nuestro Partido a través de los años (y por otros partidos comunistas de la época de Lenin) el principal objetivo del Camino hacia el Socialismo EUA, es el de trazar el camino a partir del presente hacia el socialismo en nuestro país. Este destaca tres etapas importantes de lucha necesaria para ir de aquí hacía allá:

El objetivo de la primera etapa es el de vencer al movimiento político de ultra-derecha que está dominado por un sector de los monopolios trasnacionales. Este movimiento ha dominado al gobierno, las vidas políticas y económicas desde finales de los años 70 hasta las elecciones del 2008. Para derrotar a la ultra-derecha se requiere una amplia alianza -y "un frente popular" - encabezada por la clase trabajadora, los oprimidos racial y nacionalmente, mujeres y jóvenes (las fuerzas básicas) y otros estratos sociales, las tendencias políticas y movimientos sociales, unido a las alianzas temporales con el sector más moderado del monopolio capitalista.

En la segunda etapa, el plan es el de limitar radicalmente el poder del monopolio como un todo, construyendo una "coalición antimonopolio" en una escala aún más amplia que la del frente popular, y esta vez con la clase trabajadora y todas las fuerzas centrales, ejecutando un rol aún mayor y sin la participación de ningún componente de los monopolios.

En la tercera etapa, el plan es el de ganar poder político para la misma constelación de las fuerzas sociales y de clase, lideradas por la clase trabajadora pero en una escala mucho más amplia de participación. La aspiración de esta etapa es la tomar el poder y construir el socialismo por parte de la coalición encabezada por la clase trabajadora.

El programa también incluye discusiones extensas acerca de los niveles de desarrollo de la economía y el resultado de los problemas sociales, la naturaleza y el papel de la clase trabajadora, el esfuerzo de los estratos sociales y la lucha por la democracia, el carácter de la "opresión especial" y el papel resultante de otras fuerzas centrales y de sus alianzas con las clases industriales y de todas las clases trabajadoras, el carácter de cada una de las etapas de lucha, incluyendo a un sector substancial del socialismo en Estados Unidos y de la naturaleza y el papel del Partido Comunista.

El cambio se ejecuta de manera rápida en nuestro país. Pocos meses después de que se adopta un documento, algunos detalles, por lo menos, habrán cambiado y serán fechados. Los reportes dados en cualquier Comité Nacional del Partido Comunista (NC) toman en cuenta mayores cambios durante el periodo previo. El reporte y la documentación básica para la Convención Nacional toma en consideración los cambios importantes ocurridos desde la convención anterior, incluyendo las proyecciones de desarrollo, las luchas y las políticas por al menos un par de años antes de otra convención, pero teniendo presente que la CN se reunirá regularmente y actualizará los acontecimientos ocurridos.

Pero la tarea y el propósito de programa básico del partido no es el de actualizar eventos entre convención y convención, como tampoco cubrir algún otro periodo determinado. Lo que intenta es presentar en general las mayores etapas cualitativas de desarrollo y lucha, incluyendo la batalla por el socialismo. De manera que en nada ayuda intentar ya sea revisar o editar línea-por-línea y actualizar el programa en cada convención, a menos que nosotros concluyéramos que nos equivocados en nuestra etapa de análisis estratégico y político, o con respecto a una de sus etapas, o que se haya presentado un inesperado giro en la lucha.

Cuando el país pase claramente de una etapa estratégica de lucha a la siguiente -cualitativamente diferentes- entonces será útil reexaminar el Programa y hacer cambios mayores. Una nueva etapa estratégica implica cambios cualitativos en la mayor parte de los aspectos sociales, políticos y económicos de la sociedad, que sólo podrán ser pronosticados aproximadamente antes de que estemos completamente en otra etapa. Por consiguiente es importante revisar cuando estemos en la posición de conocer todos esos nuevos acontecimientos y evaluaciones, lo que significan, y qué ajustes y afinamiento de detalles en la política táctica y estratégica se necesitan.
Creemos que todavía no nos hemos pasado de una etapa a la otra. Sin embargo, hay dos situaciones inesperadas que están afectando el Programa.

La primera fue el hundimiento del capitalismo en los Estados Unidos y del mundo en la peor crisis económica desde la Gran Depresión. Esta situación ha impactado duramente las vidas de todos los trabajadores y especialmente aquellos que pertenecen a los sectores más oprimidos de la clase trabajadora: los oprimidos racialmente y nacionalmente, los jóvenes y las mujeres. Esto ha impactado todos los aspectos de la vida económica, política, social e ideológica de nuestro país y de todo el mundo capitalista. El cómo y el por qué esto ocurrió y el por qué es tan profundo que ha abarcado a todos los estratos, está vinculado con el desarrollo del capitalismo monopolista de Estado en su fase de globalización, pasando a un estadio de de desarrollo que denominamos "Finacialización". En este estadio, el sector financiero, bajo una nueva forma se ha convertido en el elemento dominante del capitalismo, a expensa de otros sectores. También es característica de esta fase, la desregulación del sector financiero y la introducción de derivativas altamente riesgosas.

Sin duda que la segunda ocurrencia fue la mayor derrota sufrida por la ultra-derecha en la elección del primer presidente afroamericano, Barack Obama, y la elección de un Congreso Demócrata. Esta victoria demostró que la masa de trabajadores blancos, puede votar a favor de sus propios intereses y rechazar el racismo. La administración Obama, con el apoyo de todas las fuerzas básicas, y especialmente del movimiento obrero organizado y muchos otros aliados, ha logrado progresos en casi todos los frentes de lucha, y frenar el deterioro de los años de dominación de la ultraderecha. Con ese mismo ímpetu ha comenzado a avanzar en una dirección progresista, aunque no tanto como muchos lo hubieran deseado.

Esto representa el comienzo de la transición del momento estratégico de la derrota de la ultraderecha (derrota que está lejos de ser total) hacia la etapa de reducir radicalmente el poder de los monopolios como un todo, algo que apenas ha comenzado. Cuando el país derrote definitivamente a la ultraderecha y entre por completo en la lucha antimonopolista, los movimientos tendrán un nuevo oponente principal en la lucha, y necesitarán una alianza más fuerte, amplia, estratégicamente más activa comenzando con la clase obrera, los sindicatos y otras fuerzas básicas.

Estar en un periodo de transición significa que hay nuevas potencialidades para avanzar y nuevos riesgos y dificultades que requieren movimientos rápidos hacia nuestra política estratégica y tomando en cuenta la naturaleza de tal transición, sus exigencias y sus tácticas. Muchas de las luchas, demandas y tácticas del período de transición, seguirán estando caracterizadas por el ciclo antiderechista, aún cuando surjan nuevas luchas, demandas e incluso victorias, con un carácter marcadamente antimonopolista. Nuestro documento básico para la Convención y especialmente el Informe a la convención, indudablemente busca introducir los correctivos correspondientes.

Durante un periodo de transición, siempre hay peligro de volver a la etapa previa de la lucha, debido a los contratiempos o a un simple cambio del equilibrio de fuerzas, desfavorable para la clase trabajadora y el pueblo. Encaramos ese peligro hoy. Debemos de tener cuidado de no desechar rápidamente la necesidad de mantener como nuestra estrategia principal la unidad en contra de la ultraderecha aunque se presenten oportunidades para la lucha antimonopolista. Nuestro objetivo principal es el de ayudar a mantener la unidad y la fuerza de la coalición popular en contra de la ultraderecha, conforme el movimiento vaya madurando, desarrollándose y creciendo, poniendo las bases para demandas más avanzadas y eventualmente para enfrentar totalmente las fuerzas monopolistas. Se requiere precisar claramente cuáles son los oponentes primarios durante el periodo de transición.

Sería de utilidad incluir un suplemento del Camino hacia el Socialismo EUA que consagrado a estos grandes acontecimientos -la crisis económica y la transición desde la etapa de la ultraderecha hacia la etapa del antimonopolio a través de la administración Obama, y las fuerzas estratégicas concernidas.

Si el Comité del Programa de la Convención y la Convención estuvieran de acuerdo con esta propuesta, proponemos que el nuevo NC designe una comisión para escribir dicho suplemento para ser agregado al programa.

Discusión en la Convención: Cuestiones Internacionales y Política Exterior de los EEUU

29th Convention Organizing Committee — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:13:00 -0500

Descargue el PDF

Este documento tiene el objetivo de proveer un marco y un estímulo para la discusión de la preconvención del partido Comunista de Estados Unidos, que culminará en la Convención Nacional de mayo de 2010. No se trata de un amplio análisis de cada cuestión en cada punto del planeta. El propósito principal es de dar una orientación general y estimular la discusión acerca del papel del Partido y de cada comunista en este escenario de lucha. La discusión de la preconvención en sí, puede ofrecer una oportunidad para llenar vacíos y profundizar nuestro nivel de comprensión de los temas planteados aquí y de aquellos que les están relacionados.

Reajustes mundiales, cambio en la correlación de fuerzas

A partir de los años 70, y de manera acelerada desde los 90, luego del colapso de la URSS y los estados socialistas de Europa Oriental, el capital internacional, liderado por el imperialismo norteamericano, se lanzó a una campaña de imposición de políticas neoliberales tanto a lo interno como en todo el mundo. Se le llama "libre" comercio cuando en realidad se trata de comercio manipulado a favor de las corporaciones multinacionales, privatización del sector público, en beneficio de esas mismas multinacionales y las oligarquías locales. Además recortando drásticamente los servicios públicos como la educación y el cuidado de la salud e imponiendo la desregulación en las actividades del sector privado, entre las cuales la banca y las finanzas.

Es importante señalar que las políticas militar y extranjera del imperialismo son dirigidas por los más poderosos segmentos del capitalismo, incluyendo el capital financiero y el complejo militar, industrial y energético. Esas políticas son directamente contrarias a los intereses de los trabajadores en todo el mundo.

Este período ha sido también testigo de nuevos e increíbles niveles de integración del capitalismo global. Sin la Unión Soviética y el campo socialista como contrapeso al imperialismo, el capital financiero se siente libre para errar por el mundo, devorando recursos y aplastando resistencias a sus políticas neoliberales.

En las economías capitalistas emergentes de Europa Oriental y en los países en desarrollo de Asia, África y América latina, esas políticas conducen a deudas nacionales masivas, desnacionalización de las industrias y la eliminación total de los más esenciales programas sociales. La notable excepción fue China, que se negó a seguir las directivas neoliberales del Banco Mundial y demás. China, un estado socialista y de economía de orientación socialista, pero que todavía es un país en desarrollo, no solamente salió relativamente indemne de la crisis, sino que ha dado signos de fortaleza en la presente crisis. Pero muchas economías en desarrollo fueron empujadas al borde del colapso. Las políticas neoliberales han estimulado la aparición de nuevos patrones de migración laboral desde los países pobres a los ricos.

En Europa Occidental también, os principales países capitalistas han adoptado las mismas políticas de privatización y financiación. Ahora Europa, al igual que los Estados Unidos, está en el centro de la crisis económica global, con países como Islandia al borde de una completa quiebra económica.

Aquí, en los Estados Unidos, las políticas neoliberales han exacerbado la brecha, que ya tiene tres décadas, entre la productividad y los ingresos reales, con sucesivos recortes a los programas sociales. Para cubrir esa carencia, el capital financiero se apoya, y promueve, la expansión de la deuda de los consumidores y las sucesivas burbujas especulativas. La aceleración del desmantelamiento de la base manufacturera de la economía viene acompañada de feroces ataques lanzados contra los trabajadores. La actividad económica, de manera creciente descansa en el consumismo y es cada vez más controlada por los esquemas especulativos financieros. Esas condiciones condujeron al colapso económico norteamericano y a la crisis financiera de 2008-2009. Esta crisis ha significado un golpe demoledor para la posición económica de Estados Unidos en el mundo.

El descrédito del modelo económico neoliberal promovido por Estados Unidos estuvo emparejado con el descrédito del liderazgo de la política exterior norteamericana, como resultado del desastroso fracaso de las políticas agresivas y militaristas de la administración Bush, especialmente la invasión y ocupación de Irak.
El resultado de estas políticas neoliberales militaristas extremas ha sido la profundización de las contradicciones en el mundo, el surgimiento de mayores retos al imperialismo norteamericano en América Latina, China y en otros lugares, así como la estrepitosa caída de la posición internacional de Estados Unidos.
China ha surgido como uno de los poderes económicos del mundo, rivalizando con Estados Unidos. Además de China, hay otras economías en ascenso, como Brasil, India y Rusia. La mayoría de las naciones latinoamericanas, de una u otra forma, han rechazado el neoliberalismo y esta región vecina nuestra, que en el pasado fue terreno para la explotación imperialista, ha establecido nuevas e independientes formas de cooperación económica y desarrollo. La Unión Europea es uno de los principales centros económicos y crecientemente actúa independientemente de los Estados Unidos.

En las Naciones Unidas, los Estados Unidos todavía conservan el poder del veto, pero ya no pueden hacer lo que quieren. Otras naciones exigen cambios a la estructura de la ONU y otras instituciones globales, que reflejen la nueva correlación de fuerzas mundial. La ONU, en particular, es un escenario de lucha con potencialidades para jugar un papel cada vez mayor.

Así, el imperialismo norteamericano se enfrenta a desafíos sin precedentes a la incomparable supremacía que mantuvo durante muchos años. Ha sido obligado a una retirada y a bregar con su reducida influencia. Se enfrenta a una creciente presión para limitar el uso de su poder militar, incluso para se desmilitarice, para que actúe en el área del cambio climático, para que suma su responsabilidad por la profunda pobreza que mantiene a la mayoría de la gente recibiendo apenas menos de $2 por día, sin agua potable ni tierra cultivable, a respetar a la ONU y otros órganos internacionales y a responder y ayudar a prevenir epidemias y desastres. En otras palabras, es bajo presión de la comunidad mundial para que reconsidere su comprensión de la seguridad global establecida sobre una base colectiva y de cooperación, más allá del terrorismo y el poder político.

Nuevo reto internacional: el calentamiento global

Los trabajadores y todos los pueblos, incluido el norteamericano enfrentan ahora un nuevo reto internacional: el cambio climático y el calentamiento global.
En casi todos los países del mundo hay luchas en torno a esta cuestión. Ha aparecido divisiones entre los países altamente desarrollados y los países en desarrollo, entre varios estamentos del capital global y dentro de la clase obrera y el pueblo, acerca de quien cargará con los costos derivados del cambio de una economía mundial basada en combustibles fósiles a una economía energética renovable. A los mineros les preocupa su trabajo. A los países en desarrollo les preocupa pensar que tendrán que pagar por la destrucción creada por las naciones ricas e industrializadas. Algunos grupos del capital global, que aceptan lo que dice la ciencia acerca del calentamiento global y tienen un interés propio en dejar atrás los combustibles fósiles, han chocado con la "vieja guardia" del capital, que obtiene beneficios con el petróleo, el gas y el carbón.

El calentamiento global y la crisis del cambio climático en el contexto de la crisis económica global, plantea un urgente nuevo reto a la clase trabajadora y al pueblo de nuestro país y al mundo, así como a nuestro Partido.

Los hechos relativos al calentamiento global exigen a la humanidad actuar sin pérdida de tiempo pues de no hacerlo, los efectos negativos a largo plazo, convertirían al planeta en algo diferente a lo que conocemos hoy. Las primeras víctimas son y serán los pueblos del mundo en desarrollo y las regiones más expuestas a las sequías, la subida del nivel del mar y otros impactos climáticos. Pero como somos un mismo planeta, con una economía y un clima globales, lo más probable es que los mismos Estados Unidos también se conviertan en víctimas. Esta situación plantea no solamente un reto sino también una inédita nueva oportunidad para que se desarrolle un movimiento de masas que reorganice las economías de los Estados Unidos y del mundo, en beneficio del pueblo y del planeta. Esto significará enfrentar a esos grupos del capitalismo norteamericano que por mucho tiempo han logrado enormes beneficios de una economía basada en combustibles fósiles y que luchan "con uñas y dientes" contra cualquier cambio que recorte sus beneficios.

La política extranjera de la administración Obama

El reajuste global de fuerzas está vinculado con la cambiante dinámica política dentro de nuestro país.

Los nuevos desafíos al dominio global del capital financiero norteamericano han generado distintos tipos de respuesta de parte de sectores de la clase dominante de los Estados Unidos. La subida de la administración Bush en el 2000, puso al frente de Estados Unidos al ala más derechista y a elementos militaristas. Los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001 y otros taques posteriores alrededor del mundo, permitieron a esta facción, dirigida esencialmente por representantes del complejo militaro/industrial contratistas militares, asuntos de petróleo y energía, corporaciones multinacionales con grandes contratos gubernamentales, etc.) a presionar a favor de una política de confrontación abierta internacional y neoliberalismo extremo a lo interno.

El descontento con esas políticas comenzó a incubar y finalmente hizo ebullición en el 2008, particularmente en el medio de la más seria crisis económica del capitalismo en varias décadas e hizo posible la campaña y victoria de Barak Obama. Esto fue expresión de repudio a esas políticas de parte de la mayoría de los norteamericanos.

Junto a las fuerzas progresistas que impulsaron la llegada de Obama a la Casa Blanca, hay mentes lúcidas que están tratando de modificar la política exterior de Estados Unidos, reorientándola para pasar de la confrontación militar a un mayor o menor grado de cooperación y diplomacia. Pero hay diferentes percepciones acerca de cómo hacerlo. Al mismo tiempo, sectores militaristas de la clase dominante y quienes impulsan una agenda neoliberal, trabajan duramente para ganar protagonismo y recuperar el control de la política exterior norteamericana. Esas fuerzas contradictorias están todas representadas en el seno de la administración Obama.

Los Estados Unidos están todavía en el estadio que nosotros, los marxistas, caracterizamos como capitalismo monopolista e imperialismo, pero eso incluye diferentes intereses y tendencias que pueden dar forma a las políticas del gobierno. Por eso es importante cuál tendencia y sus políticas deviene dominante en la medida eso afecte los intereses de la clase trabajadora, o una política ultraderechista de abierta agresión militar o una política más realista, lejos de la confrontación militar. En ese mismo orden, o una política agresivamente a favor de los monopolios, con una agenda neoliberal y global, o una política más ponderada y de cooperación económica.

Esto se pudo observar en el batallar acerca de si nos aliábamos o no con la Unión Soviética contra el fascismo durante la II Guerra Mundial. También en la lucha por decidirnos entre la coexistencia pacífica o la confrontación militar de la Guerra Fría. Finalmente en la lucha electoral entre la política de Bush y la política de Obama. Ahora se debe prestar atención a los procesos objetivos y la cambiante correlación de fuerzas, lo que es determinante para los intereses del capital monopolista norteamericano, cómo responden los diferentes segmentos del capital y el significado que esto tiene para la clase trabajadora y todo el pueblo trabajador.

Lo que beneficia a la política exterior de la facción de la derecha más agresivamente imperialista, debilita la agenda nacional progresista que las fuerzas populares se esfuerzan en implementar.

Tiene gran significación el hecho de que Obama se dirija en una dirección fundamentalmente diferente a la de Bush, en los hechos y las palabras. Pero independientemente de lo que se piense de Obama como individuo, las políticas de su administración, tanto en lo doméstico como en lo internacional, han sido y seguirán siendo modeladas no solamente por preferencias, sino por desarrollos objetivos, modificación en la correlación de fuerzas mundial, la correlación de fuerzas políticas dentro del país y el resultado de la lucha entre las fuerzas que se enfrentan en el seno mismo de la administración.

En algunas instancias, como en la situación de Afganistán y las diferentes fases de la crisis hondureña, parece que las fuerzas más conservadoras dentro de la administración y el estamento militar y de inteligencia han tenido mayor influencia en la definición de la política de la administración, mientras que en otros casos, como las iniciativas a favor del desarme nuclear, el restablecimiento de mejores relaciones con la ONU, los esfuerzos diplomáticos hacia Irán y Corea del Norte o las presiones sobre Israel por el tema de los asentamientos, parece que fuerzas más progresistas o centristas han tenido la última palabra.

Es una situación fluida. En general, la trayectoria de la administración Obama es de alejarse del agresivo militarismo de Bush, pero todavía queda por determinar cuales son sus características precisas y el alcance de su ruptura con las políticas imperiales del pasado medio siglo. Todo eso dependerá en buena medida del nivel de movilización de las organizaciones de masas en nuestro país, ejerciendo presión a favor de políticas progresistas. La elección de Obama abrió espacios para que un amplio espectro de fueras se movilice y presione para que se reviertan viejas políticas que se apoyan en el poder militar y los estrechos intereses capitalistas y para que haya cambios más profundos en un sentido progresista. Esta nueva apertura también se manifiesta internacionalmente, dando relevancia a los movimientos a favor de la paz, el desarme nuclear, la justicia económica y política y la protección del medio ambiente.

Retos y conflictos clave

Un cierto número de conflictos clave y retos específicos juegan un importante papel en la lucha para llevar la política exterior de nuestro país por una dirección nueva y mejor. Hay división en los círculos dirigentes de los Estados Unidos acerca de cómo bregar con esta situación. Esas divisiones se reflejan tanto en la administración Obama como en el Congreso. El comienzo del gobierno de Obama y el control Demócrata del Congreso ampliaron considerablemente las oportunidades para que los movimientos populares tengan impacto en las políticas que se están siguiendo.

Resolver algunos de esos conflictos clave, por ejemplo, lo de Afganistán, implica que un nuevo tipo de política define los intereses norteamericanos de una manera diferente. En lugar de la antigua forma de pensar, que consistía a considerar esos pueblos como peones en un juego de poder global (lo que incluye el control de recursos estratégicos, como el petróleo), este nuevo pensamiento en política exterior, redefinirá la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos y considerará que los intereses norteamericanos exigen que los pueblos de esas regiones conflictivas tengan comida, agua potable, electricidad, empleos estables, mejor educación, incluyendo la universitaria y la capacidad de desarrollar sus propias formas de expresión política y gobierno.

Se requiere una nueva política exterior para una nueva era. Eso supone no solamente la retirada del imperialismo norteamericano, sino también la proyección de un papel nuevo y constructivo para el gobierno de Estados Unidos en la arena mundial. La idea de un papel positivo en el mundo de parte del gobierno de Estados Unidos es un concepto diferente al que mucho de nosotros estamos acostumbrados, pero es uno por el que se debe luchar y que se debe lograr. Es preciso insistir, las oportunidades hoy son mayores que las que se han visto en mucho tiempo.

En este documento destacamos la lucha que hay que librar para alcanzar ese nuevo tipo de política exterior en relación a Afganistán, el conflicto entre israelíes y palestinos y las relaciones de Estados Unidos con Irán, África y con nuestro cercanos vecinos, la América Latina, en particular Cuba. Naturalmente, hay otras áreas muy importantes, potenciales "puntos calientes", entre los cuales Rusia, India y el conflicto de Cachemira, la península coreana y otros.

Además, de primera importancia es la cuestión de desmilitarizar la influencia global de los Estados Unidos, sobre lo cual hay fuerzas diferentes dentro de la administración Obama, quien ha lanzado algunas iniciativas para tratar de limitar los programas armamentistas del Pentágono, pero poderosos intereses enfrentan esas iniciativas. Obama también ha lanzado a la palestra el tema del desarme nuclear y ha dado algunos pasos en esa dirección con el nuevo tratado de de reducción de armamentos entre Estados Unidos y Rusia. Esto ofrece una posibilidad para que tenga mayor influencia un movimiento más amplio a favor del desarme.
La desmilitarización de nuestra política exterior tiene una fuerte expresión en Japón, donde se libra una lucha popular para deshacerse de la importante base militar en Okinawa. Durante la visita del presidente Obama allí en el 2009, ese fue uno de los principales temas de discusión.

Afganistán

La recientemente anunciada escalada militar de los Estados Unidos en Afganistán seguramente exacerbará los problemas en ese país, en el vecino Pakistán, que dispone de armas nucleares y en el resto de la región. Poner fin al papel militar norteamericano en Afganistán y en Pakistán, es con toda claridad una prioridad dado lo dañino en repercusiones políticas internacionales y en el costo económico y social en el plano interno, sin olvidar la creciente cantidad de muertos y heridos afganos y norteamericanos que eso implica.

Extraer a los militares norteamericanos de Afganistán de manera rápida, requerirá de un plan realizable y sostenible, que ayude al pueblo de Afganistán y a la región a recuperarse de más de 30 años de guerra, muchos de los cuales han sido resultado directo o indirecto de la intervención del imperialismo norteamericano. Esto exige que Estados Unidos promueva iniciativas internacionales de cooperación económica para el desarrollo, que produzcan cambios reales en las vidas de los pueblos afgano y pakistaní y que les permita construir y ampliar sus sociedades civiles y sus estructuras democráticas.

Esa es la única manera de evitar que el Talibán y otras fuerzas reaccionarias lleguen al poder. Es también la manera de crear un mejor entorno para el surgimiento de fuerzas democráticas que puedan reemplazar al corrupto régimen de Karzai, impuesto por los Estados Unidos. La presencia militar norteamericana permite al Talibán presentarse como luchadores contra la ocupación extranjera. Es bueno recordar que el dominio del Talibán se tradujo en la casi total aniquilación de la sociedad civil en Afganistán, en incalificables atrocidades contra las fuerzas progresistas, las minorías étnicas y donde las mujeres fueron colocadas en situación de virtual esclavitud. Pero el Talibán es un legado de los años de intervención norteamericana. No habrían existido y por supuesto, jamás habrían llegado al poder, de no haber sido por el imperialismo norteamericano. De la misma manera, Al Qaida en la medida en que existe en la región es también legado de la intervención norteamericana.

Un plan de retiro rápido y sostenible, debe incluir todos o algunos de los siguientes elementos: creación de un gobierno de coalición representativo, un masivo programa de ayuda internacional para el desarrollo, financiado a través de agencias de la ONU y ONG locales. Asimismo un creciente papel en cuestiones de seguridad, política y desarrollo económico para los bloques regionales que incluyen países de los alrededores interesados en la estabilidad a largo plazo de Afganistán, entre los cuales China, Rusia, India, Pakistán e Irán. Un paso a dar de inmediato sería que los Estados Unidos aceleren su retiro militar recurriendo a la ONU y los poderes regionales, para que desplieguen fuerzas de paz internacionales, a título temporal y que no incluyan tropas norteamericanas ni de la OTAN.

Conflicto israelí-palestino

La solución del conflicto israelí-palestino tendrá una importante implicación positiva a nivel global para los movimientos populares progresistas. Eso ayudará a resolver otros problemas, tales como las tensiones con Irán y dejará fuera de circulación a grupos extremistas y reaccionarios. También abrirá espacio para las luchas democráticas contra los regímenes reaccionarios del área, tales como los de Arabia Saudita e Irán, que han estado utilizando su supuesto liderazgo a favor de los derechos nacionales palestinos para ayudarse a permanecer en el poder.

En medio de las dificultades presentes, la solución de dos Estados sigue siendo la opción capaz de concitar el apoyo de la aplastante mayoría, tanto de la población palestina como de la israelí, apoyo que es esencial para que la solución sea viable. Es la única solución que permite al pueblo palestino alcanzar sus esperanzas y luchar por la soberanía nacional. Igualmente, la que permite al pueblo judío de Israel, preservar su sentido de un Estado predominantemente judío. Las luchas por la identidad y contenido democrático de cada Estado seguirán más allá de la firma de cualquier acuerdo de paz.

La persistente construcción de asentamientos israelíes y su expansión en la ocupada Ribera Occidental, particularmente en el área de Jerusalén Este, es el mayor obstáculo al reinicio de conversaciones serias. Además de eso, el continuo bloqueo israelí de Gaza, ha creado una crisis humanitaria que sirve de caldo de cultivo al incremento de las tensiones y al agravamiento de las divisiones entre el propio pueblo palestino. Al mismo tiempo, los cohetes y otros ataques contra civiles israelíes de parte de ciertos grupos palestinos, únicamente sirve para fortalecer a los "halcones de guerra" israelíes.

Obama tuvo un buen comienzo con el asunto israelí-palestino, pero una intensa oposición de parte de sectores de la clase dominante a cualquier cambio de la tradicional política norteamericana de respaldo a las políticas de Israel y la necesidad de ocuparse de otros importantes problemas, particularmente Afganistán, parece que distrajeron la atención de la administración sobre el tema. Al menos así era al final de 2009. Además, indudablemente que hay diferencias dentro de la administración acerca de cuán importante debe ser el asunto, cuáles tácticas emplear. Se agrega que parece que no se han interpretado bien los sentimientos populares palestinos e israelíes.

No obstante, se percibe que esta administración ha cambiado el tradicional "cheque en blanco" que se le daba a la derecha israelí, sin contar que existe la convicción que poner fin a este conflicto va en el sentido de los mejores intereses norteamericanos, incluso desde la perspectiva de la clase dominante. El surgimiento paralelo de un movimiento a favor de la paz dentro de la comunidad judía norteamericana, representa un importante cambio en la dinámica política de nuestro país. Es significativo que esta tendencia ha sido bien recibida en la Casa Blanca y en el Congreso. Esto ofrece una enorme oportunidad para finalmente resolver de manera positiva un conflicto de 60 años.

Irak

Pese a que la retirada de Irak está tomando más tiempo del que desearía el movimiento progresista, la administración Obama actúa de acuerdo con el programa establecido de retirada, siguiendo el Acuerdo sobre el estado de las fuerzas militares (Status of Forces Agreement). La mayoría de las tropas se han retirado ya a sus bases y el acuerdo plantea una retirada total de todas las fuerzas norteamericanas (combatientes o de otro tipo) y el cierre total de todas las bases para fines de 2011. Algunos dentro del estamento militar y otras personas de la derecha (incluyendo a algunos elementos de la propia administración Obama) han estado proponiendo una presencia militar de Estados Unidos en Irak a largo plazo. Hasta ahora, Obama ha resistido esas presiones, pero el total cumplimiento del plan de retirada será efectivo solamente si desde abajo se hace retroceder a esas fuerzas de derecha.

Dentro de Irak, las fuerzas progresistas y de izquierda, así como el movimiento sindical, están luchando por ampliar los derechos democráticos y políticos, creando nuevas y efectivas leyes laborales y erigiendo un Estado moderno, democrático, multiétnico capaz de de desarrollar a Irak libre del dominio de los intereses corporativos multinacionales de Estados Unidos. El éxito de esos esfuerzos puede tener un impacto positivo en los movimientos populares de otros países de la región y en nuestro propio país. La AFL-CIO puede hacer una importante contribución a esa lucha, pues ya ha lanzado iniciativas para establecer contactos con los sindicaos iraquíes.

Irán

La administración Obama ha tratado de revertir la política de confrontación con Irán de Bush, así como de involucrar al gobierno de ese país en negociaciones. Esto debe ser visto como algo positivo, que hay que estimular y apoyar. De producirse, eso tendría un enorme impacto en la región, en Afganistán, en Irak y sobre el conflicto israelí-palestino.

Dentro de Irán, en los pasados cinco años, los elementos más reaccionarios y militaristas de la Guardia Revolucionaria, se han adueñado de los mecanismos gubernamentales, las empresas públicas e incluso negocios privados (a través de masivas campañas de privatización). Se han convertido en una clásica clase capitalista parasitaria, que controla en buena medida la economía, las estructuras políticas y el aparato militar. Las fraudulentas elecciones de junio de 2009 fueron parte de ese proceso de realineación de fuerzas.

Esto ha dado como resultado conflictos y malestar entre las clases, incluso dentro de la propia clase capitalista. El movimiento de oposición surgido durante las elecciones fue producto de esas contradicciones salidas a la luz pública. La oposición es una variada y dispar coalición multiclasista, que incluye a sectores de la clase obrera, de los estudiantes, el movimiento de mujeres y elementos de la burguesía nacional.

Las iniciativas de la administración Obama para involucrar diplomáticamente a Irán son importantes, aunque hay presiones en Washington a favor de una política de confrontación que puede conducir a un conflicto militar. Apoyar las aspiraciones democráticas del pueblo iraní contra el régimen reaccionario, no está en contradicción con el respaldo a las iniciativas diplomáticas hacia Irán y la necesidad de calmar las tensiones.

América Latina

Desde la elección de Hugo Chávez como presidente de Venezuela en 1999, la región de la América Latina y el Caribe ha mostrado una tendencia hacia la izquierda. En rápida sucesión, se han establecido gobiernos de izquierda y centro izquierda en Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Brasil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras. Solo los gobiernos de Perú, México, Colombia y Panamá todavía están en manos de la derecha y el gobierno peruano, asediado por movilizaciones indígenas, de campesinos y de trabajadores.

Ese giro a la izquierda ha sido facilitado por ciertos factores, entre los cuales:

Una exitosa organización de masas y movilización de los trabajadores, los campesinos, indígenas y otras fuerzas, contra los programas neoliberales que han afectado considerablemente su bienestar.

La capacidad de Venezuela, trabajando con la Cuba socialista, para crear proyectos alternativos de ayuda y de intercambio comercial, conducente a un bloque de naciones crecientemente independientes del control del imperialismo norteamericano.

La creciente capacidad de la grande y potencialmente progresiva economía industrial de Brasil para apoyar este independiente y orientado a la izquierda movimiento.
La fuente alternativa de intercambio comercial ofrecida por la República Popular China.

Sin embargo, esa tendencia a la izquierda no es imparable y es todavía cuestionada por fuerzas reaccionarias todavía poderosas entre los latifundistas, comerciantes y las oligarquías bancarias, el alto mando militar y la jerarquía de la iglesia católica. Esos sectores trabajan de cerca con la derecha norteamericana y las corporaciones. El golpe en el 2009 en Honduras es un ejemplo de esa asociación.

Las iniciativas de la administración Obama en esa área comenzaron con buenos auspicios, con su negativa a interferir en las elecciones salvadoreñas en marzo, sus positivas declaraciones durante la Cumbre de las Américas en Trinidad y Tobago en abril y la suspensión de las restricciones que limitaban los viajes o el envío de dinero de los cubanos americanos a sus familiares en Cuba. Las declaraciones iniciales de Obama, oponiéndose al golpe en Honduras implicaron también una importante ruptura con pasadas prácticas norteamericanas.

Pero otras decisiones ha creado preocupación, como el anuncio de que Estados Unidos comenzaría a utilizar siete bases militares más en Colombia, con la posibilidad de que dichas bases pudieran ser utilizadas para oponerse a los gobiernos de orientación izquierdista de la región. A eso se agrega la declaración del Departamento de Estado, que aceptaría los resultados de las elecciones en Honduras, celebradas bajo el régimen golpista. Todo indica que la administración Obama todavía necesita desarrollar una actitud hacia América latina que rompa decididamente con la vieja política de la superpotencia.

Sobre Cuba, la administración parece actuar con cautela. Pero hay un creciente respaldo bipartidista para poner fin a las restricciones de viajes a Cuba y poner fin al bloqueo económico. Entre quienes apoyan esta tendencia con mayor fuerza aparecen congresistas Republicanos que representan Estados agrícolas que se beneficiarían de una apertura comercial con Cuba. Esto se corresponde con la creación de un amplio movimiento, dentro de los Estados Unidos, a favor de la normalización de las relaciones con Cuba, incluyendo la liberación de los Cinco cubanos.

Es especialmente importante, con relación a América Latina, el papel del movimiento obrero. Entre otras iniciativas sindicales internacionales, el sindicato de trabajadores del acero, ha estado activamente involucrado en la solidaridad con el movimiento laboral colombiano. Los trabajadores del acero también encabezan el apoyo a los trabajadores mineros y metalúrgicos mexicanos, contra el ataque del derechista gobierno de Calderón. Ellos y otros sectores laborales norteamericanos han mostrado una admirable solidaridad con los miembros del sindicato independiente de electricistas, el SME, actualmente amenazado por intentos gubernamentales para disolverlo. También es alentador que este año, la AFL-CIO se haya pronunciado enérgicamente contra el golpe derechista en Honduras.

África

Desde el colapso de la URSS y el socialismo en Europa Oriental el África al sur del Sahara, ha sido sometida a una ofensiva despiadada de parte del capital transnacional, lo que dado como resultado en el empeoramiento de las condiciones de vida de una región que ya era pobre. El creciente proceso de desertificación, el tremendo impacto del SIDA, la pérdida de la ayuda que venía de las ex naciones socialistas y la agresiva imposición de acuerdos comerciales neoliberales han revertido el progreso en muchos países. Las consecuencias han sido conflictos civiles y masivas migraciones.

En varios países del continente, el saqueo de los recursos nacionales de parte de las corporaciones multinacionales, ha sido acompañado por brutales acciones militares lanzadas por instancias estatales y no estatales, que en algunas ocasiones han tenido la proporción de genocidios. La República Democrática del Congo es actualmente el peor caso, pero no es el único estado africano sometido a esas condiciones. Una nueva variable es que los países de izquierda de la América Latina que componen el ALBA, han estado tratando de desarrollar relaciones comerciales inter atlánticas y crear mecanismos de ayuda que permita a las naciones africanas romper con el modelo neoliberal impuesto por los ricos países capitalistas. China también está ofreciendo fuentes alternativas comerciales y de desarrollo a las naciones de África.
El descrédito del neoliberalismo y el advenimiento de la administración Obama, con la perspectiva de un gran "sentimiento" por los pueblos de África, abre una gran oportunidad para impulsar una reforma de las relaciones de Estados Unidos con ese continente, al que no ha considerado como una prioridad y ha tratado como basurero para deshechos tóxicos norteamericanos, además de haberse enfocado en bases y estrategias militares, para pasar a una relación de mutuo interés económico, social y cultural.

El movimiento por la paz y su papel

La elección de Barak Obama significó el repudio del pueblo norteamericano a las políticas interna e internacional de Bush. Esa victoria, y de hecho, la facilidad de la misma, en buena medida fue debida al creciente sentimiento contra la guerra en Irak y en general, contra la política exterior de Bush.

Esas elecciones reflejaron la madurez de las fuerzas progresistas y la coalición de organizaciones populares frente a las políticas extremadamente neoliberales de la administración Bush y las crisis que provocaron. La clase obrera, y especialmente su núcleo organizado, ayudó a dar consistencia a las fuerzas sociales clave (afroamericanos, hispanos, asiáticos y otras minorías raciales y nacionales oprimidas, las mujeres y los jóvenes) en su oposición a esas políticas y fue determinante en la elección de Obama. Fue decisivo el mayoritario movimiento por la paz en los Estados Unidos y contra la guerra en Irak.

El propio movimiento obrero organizado, por primera vez desde los años 30, comenzó seriamente a oponerse a la política exterior norteamericana, la guerra y las denominadas cuestiones de libre comercio, mientras producía un acercamiento con el movimiento obrero del mundo, en busca de solidaridad en la lucha contra el capital financiero y las grandes corporaciones multinacionales.

La organización UFJP y el amplio movimiento pacifista de los Estados Unidos, tuvieron una importante participación en el cambio de la actitud pública ante la guerra y finalmente en el rechazo electoral al militarismo del partido Republicano personificado en el binomio McCain-Palin.

Pero la elección de Obama, luego de ocho años de la administración más derechista y militarista de la historia reciente norteamericana, junto al impacto de la profunda crisis económica, creó un escenario político en el que muchas personas dentro del movimiento progresista, particularmente en el movimiento por la paz, encuentran dificultades para navegar.

Algunos elementos dentro del movimiento por la paz, en actitud estrecha, insisten en equiparar a la nueva administración con el gobierno de Bush, manteniendo el mismo patrón de oposición. Naturalmente, sigue siendo un objetivo importante del movimiento por la paz, oponerse a políticas que siguen el viejo y destructivo esquema, tales como la escalada militar en Afganistán. Es preciso movilizarse contra esa tendencia. Pero no debe cometerse el error de no apreciar los cambios positivos, por pequeños, vacilantes e inconsistentes que sean. Asimismo, dejar de reconocer el significado de las divisiones dentro de la clase dominante en lo relativo a la política exterior, implica dejar pasar importantes oportunidades para reforzar y profundizar los avances. Además, tal actitud conduce al aislamiento del movimiento por la paz con relación a los movimientos en el resto del mundo, particularmente la clase obrera y las comunidades afroamericana, hispana y otras.

Además, la lucha para cambiar nuestra política exterior en una dirección progresista, debe tomar en cuenta que la crisis económica es lo principal para el pueblo norteamericano y es lo que motiva el movimiento para el cambio.

El reto para el movimiento por la paz es ampliar sus filas y desarrollar nuevas alianzas, especialmente con los trabajadores y otros luchadores en el escenario de la justicia económica, para que surja un amplio movimiento popular que exija el fin de la guerra, una política exterior pacífica y la desmilitarización de nuestra economía, como parte esencial de de un nuevo "Nuevo contrato". El eslogan "si a los empleos, no a la guerra" no ha sido nunca antes tan apropiado y debe ser lo esencial en ese esfuerzo organizativo.

El papel de los comunistas y del Partido Comunista

En este nuevo período, nuestro partido puede jugar un papel indispensable ayudando a crear un amplio movimiento, que involucre a las fuerzas esenciales del movimiento popular, con los trabajadores en el centro, que respalde los pasos positivos dados por la administración Obama, para derrotar la extrema derecha y el militarismo que todavía conservan un tremendo poder. También para estructurar un contrapeso a cualquier tendencia a capitular ante la derecha, ayudar a la administración Obama a dejar atrás las políticas de la Guerra Fría y establecer formas de cooperación multilateral internacional que satisfagan las necesidades de los trabajadores y de la gente común del mundo.

La medida en que la administración Obama avance en esa dirección dependerá en como el electorado progresista crezca más que el electorado que eligió a Obama. Eso requerirá mayor educación y movilización de las organizaciones de masa norteamericanas, para así romper, definitivamente, el control de la extrema derecha, respaldar las medidas positivas de la administración, empujar desde abajo para profundizar las iniciativas positivas y oponerse a las políticas que sirven a las viejas fuerzas neoliberales y su agenda.

El Partido Comunista y los comunistas tienen un importante papel para ayudar a difundir este tipo de pensamiento táctico y estratégico dentro del movimiento por la paz y otros movimientos sociales. Asimismo, ayudar a la construcción de la capacidad organizativa de un amplio movimiento popular, a favor de una nueva política exterior, vinculada a la solución de las crisis económicas y del empleo.

Es tiempo para nosotros repensar los tipos de vinculación que tenemos con la política exterior y de paz. Puede que no tengamos la debida amplitud de miras acerca de lo que definimos como organizaciones por la "paz" y en cuales organizaciones nos involucramos para impulsar la causa de la paz. Grupos comunitarios, sindicatos locales, grupos involucrados en luchas económicas, organizaciones representativas de comunidades de color, organizaciones juveniles, femeninas, ambientales, de homosexuales y otras; ¿no son esos escenarios para crear un sentimiento a favor de la paz, vinculándolo a cuestiones de económicas, sociales y de política exterior?
Los movimientos emergentes en torno a los empleos verdes y el calentamiento global son áreas importantes en las cuales nuestro Partido y sus miembros pueden establecer esas conexiones, ayudar a promover la solidaridad de clase, la justicia social en nuestro país y en el mundo y fortalecer la unidad.

Al mismo tiempo, nunca antes ha sido tan importante fortalecer la solidaridad internacional de los trabajadores, aprovechando pasos positivos que en esa dirección han dado la AFL-CIO y sindicatos norteamericanos. Debido a nuestras especiales relaciones internacionales y nuestras perspectivas internacionalistas, nuestro partido y los comunistas en el movimiento obrero, pueden jugar un papel de particular importancia en esa área.

A largo plazo, nuestra mayor contribución a la solidaridad internacional de la clase obrera es la de ayudar a construir nuestro Partido Comunista, como parte de un amplio y poderoso movimiento de la clase obrera en los Estados Unidos.