Decision Time for the CPUSA

Written by Edward A. Drummond

I welcome the mounting calls in the CPUSA to replace Sam Webb in order to restore and revive the Communist Party. I urge that he resign now, and spare us a messy internal fight.   It is now necessary to remove him. Not to remove him is not an option. His job is a political post, and he doesn’t have the appropriate politics. How do we know that? He says so in his new 10,000-word think piece “A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century.” [1] It’s not personal. He simply doesn’t do what we pay him to do. He isn’t doing his real job. Evidently, he does not intend to do it. He has made gigantic mistakes. He has presided over organizational decline. But he shuns accountability. Self-criticism is rare, whispered, and tucked away in paragraph 17. He conceals information from us. He has a pattern of dissembling.[2]  He has become an ideological émigré from the Communist movement. But he beckons us to follow him. It's time to reassign him to other work where he can do less damage.  With this outrageous essay he has thrown down the gauntlet. If we don’t move him out as national chair, how can we say we have any self–respect? I concede: Sam Webb has the right to change his politics and become a non-Communist. That he has exercised that right in the article under discussion is evident. Webb, however, does not have the right to be a non-Communist and at same time be chair of our party, the CPUSA. Nobody has such a right. I will grant, also, that Sam Webb is an accomplished speechwriter. Moving words around on a page, he can produce "truthiness," a useful term invented by comedian Stephen Colbert.  Webb can make apostasy seem like common sense.  For example, he throws out Lenin’s revolutionary party of a new type -- in favor of an opportunist party of the old type -- with these sentences: A party of socialism in the 21st century will construct its own organizational model in line with its own material conditions and needs. It shouldn't be hatched out of thin air or imported from another country. A more accurate title for his confessional essay would have been “How I Became a Social Democrat, and Why You Should Too.” Most of its ideas he has expressed before, but here they are more boldly expressed. Various writers, including me, have critiqued them on this web site.[3] A tenth of the article is devoted to his personal political evolution away from Communism. Sadly, all Party members will not read a ten thousand-word think piece. If they do not, the damage inflicted will be all the greater. Top Ten Reasons to Remove Him On the basis of this document alone, Comrade Webb should be required by the NC to vacate his post. Its most egregious disclosure is this: he doesn’t   believe any longer in the goals of the CPUSA. It took him ten years to confess to this. Those paying attention had deduced it years ago. Webb declares: 1. Lenin and Leninism are Out. “As for "Marxism-Leninism," the term should be retired in favor of simply "Marxism." No wonder the CPUSA opposition to US imperialist wars -- Iraq, Afghanistan -- has been enfeebled. Marxism? He says he is for it. However, there are few more fundamental Marxist ideas than historical inevitability, and the class character of the state. Having dumped Leninism, it turns out he’s not really in favor of Marxism either. Historical inevitability? Out. “After all, there is no direct or inevitable path to socialism.” Class character of the state? Out. “Struggle within the state is no less important than struggle against the state.” The core principle of Party organization -- democratic centralism -- is out.  There is a remaining prohibition against factionalism that he applies to others, but not to his own faction. I will return to this. Leadership  of mass movements, i.e. a struggle for a CPUSA vanguard role in people’s movements? Out. He says he is for it. But not when you read the fine print. [4] The Party Program is out. His socialism is “a work in progress.” The CPUSA Program says Marxism-Leninism is the ideological guidance of the Party. He says no. 2. Fake internationalism. He says he is for internationalism, but rails against “foreign-sounding” words.[5] He is quite selective about foreign-ness. Leninism is foreign-sounding; Marxism is not foreign-sounding. This is deceitful hogwash rooted in reformism and national chauvinism. 3. Sophistry and double talk. A document so rife with bunkum surely says something about its author’s character.  His version of “dialectics” is mumbo jumbo.[6] He is clueless about real dialectics. He claims that a “party of socialism in the 21st century" is  “steeped in class struggle.” Class struggle is what he is running away from. His top political principle is support for the Democrats, not class struggle. His labored, fake modesty is repellent. He declares  that  these are just a few exploratory ideas…which I humbly submit… knowing we all make mistakes ...it’s a work in progress.  In 2005, he sprang his  “Reflections on Socialism” on the Party convention on its last day. It was similarly billed as a personal viewpoint, just a few tentative ideas. It has been on the Party web site as a canonical text ever since. If he were really modest he would acknowledge the complete failure of his analysis. Recall how wrong – and how haughty – his opinions were, when he chastised domestic and foreign skeptics as “ostriches.” Labor and its allies now have a friend, a people's advocate in the White House. ... it is obvious that the Obama administration represents a qualitative break with rightwing extremism and free-market fundamentalism. Not to see this, not to acknowledge this, not to welcome this, no matter whether you live in or outside U.S. borders, is to act like the ostrich that sticks its head in the sand and misses what is happening on the ground. [7] 4. Misleading the members. Good leaders don’t make big mistakes, and they revise mistakes promptly. As he now admits openly, Webb’s theories and policies are not “mistakes.” The decision to hollow out the CPUSA as a genuine Communist Party, to make it merely a pressure group inside the Democratic Party came first.  Sam Webb changed his politics in the 1990s.[8]  But he also decided to keep his job (and the perks and assets that go with it), and try by stealth and by guile to remake CPUSA as a social democratic or perhaps a liberal Democratic organization. The two, in practice, are little different.  Since coming into office in 2000, he has been tiptoeing and wordsmithing his way toward this end.  So far, he has largely succeeded. 5. Anti-Communism. A full answer to his obsession with Stalin would require a book. Suffice it to say anti-Stalinism is the antechamber to all-out anti-Communism.  For one so preoccupied with the “ultra right,”  he uses the bitterest anti-Communist rhetoric of the ultra right in his plea for more anti-Stalinism in the CPUSA. [9] 6. Harmful impact on mass movements.  With Communists playing a smaller role in it, the antiwar movement is floundering. When was the last big antiwar demonstration in Washington? The trade unions  -- without a Communist critique, Communist skill at building left-center coalitions and Communist strategic understanding -- have no idea what to do now that Obama Administration is attacking working people almost daily. Their plan was to elect Obama and pass the Employee Free Choice Act. What’s the plan now? 7. Harmful impact on the Party. A falling, aging membership.  Dwindling CPUSA influence on the left and people’s movements. Internal Party morale at rock bottom. Clubs drifting.  8. Incompetence. His stewardship of the organization is in itself a sufficient basis to remove him. Webb’s self–described “flexible and non-dogmatic Marxism,”[10] has led to a trail of errors. In 2008-2010 we were treated to delirious rhapsodies about the President’s alleged “community organizer” background.  A chimerical "Obama Movement" was claimed to exist, thereby conflating a movement with 1) a campaign email list of small donors, or else 2) a transient moment in November 2008 when new forces entered the voting booth. A progressive “Obama Agenda,” to which we were required to rally our new Democratic Party contacts, was said to exist. When his right-wing Cabinet appointments were made, we heard, "Don't go bananas," such appointments need not imply future policy direction. For two years -- facts be damned -- Webb and Co. continued to swoon.   Obama became the leader of the people's movements, a "friend." Early 2009 was the "springtime of possibility." He was "brilliant," a "transformational" politician. The country was coming "out of the crisis," into "an era of democratic reform." Members were advised to attend the Inaugural festivities. Some Party leaders actually predicted that Obama would shift leftward after the Inauguration.  We heard the  "Impossible has become Possible." A mountain of evidence that Obama, not McCain, was the main recipient of Wall Street donations was dismissed. [11] 9. Webb doesn’t do his job. He is mainly responsible for carrying out the line of the Party as expressed in the Party Program.[12] Openly, he is declaring that his present political convictions lead him in another direction. A self-respecting organization cannot tolerate such behavior. 10. Webb’s ideas amount to Browderism for the 21st Century. "The historic error of social democracy is trailing behind the big bourgeoisie," wrote William Z. Foster in 1946. [13]  The ghost of Browder haunts the CPUSA today. The present course of the CPUSA is precisely the Browder error: trailing an illusory liberal monopoly bourgeoisie whose political expression is said to be the Obama Administration Browder wrongly projected that Big Three (US-UK-USSR) wartime unity would continue after the defeat of the Axis, with the consent of US monopoly capitalists, all “intelligent men.” Browder then tried to ally the CPUSA with his imaginary “liberal” big bourgeoisie. In fact, the Truman government was becoming less liberal by the day, as it became the instrument of US ruling circles’ desire to launch the Cold War and McCarthyism. Similarly, today, the leadership circle around Webb hitched its wagon to Obama in 2008, as it had earlier hitched its wagon to Congressional Democrats. Obama and the Democrats are – we are supposed to believe – the voice of the “liberal” big bourgeoisie, our rampart against the “ultra right.” Reality just won’t conform to Webb’s predictions.  The US Administration  is moving  rightward as fast as it can. Other objectionable, dishonest features, such as the use of Straw Men, are everywhere. No Communist, ever, has said “reform is a dirty word,” as he implies. Marxism is revolutionary in theory and practice, but it doesn't consider "gradual" and "reform" to be dirty words. nor does it believe that every political moment at the level of concrete reality is actually or potentially radical and revolutionary. Conclusion If the Webb line is Browderism for the 21st Century,  its end, sooner or later, will be the same. The ship is already foundering on the sharp rocks of reality. But will its end be in time to save the Party? Ousting him in an internal fight will not be easy. On his side, for example, is the abysmally low standard of Party ideological education which he has done so much to lower. This fact works in favor of his desired transformation of the Party into a gelatinous association of liberal Democrats. I beseech Party members, still holding back,  to re-think the “factionalism” issue. That democratic centralism is already a dead letter is clear from the open advocacy by his surrogates of a Party name change, even ending the CPUSA as a party.  Webb’s Twenty-Nine Theses tell us he is no longer a Communist. He is not binding himself by democratic centralism. You should not be either, if it impedes the fight to save the Party. If and when we restore the Party, then we can restore disciplined, democratic unity, that is to say, restore democratic centralism. If other leaders of the National Committee (NC) and National Board (NB) have neither the wit nor common sense to understand what’s at stake -- if they cannot grasp that Webb’s stated politics make him unsuitable for the post he is in -- then  we must go to the Districts and clubs.  He holds the most important post in the Party.  He sets the line. He sets the leadership agenda and priorities. He makes assignments.  He hires and fires.  He has the last word on the assets. So far, many Party leaders have hardly covered themselves in glory. Some still stay silent. Like Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield, they hope that “something will turn up.” Some confine their opposition to sharing derisive comments about his inane ideas only among their friends, who already agree with them.  This is opportunism. The result is that nothing changes, and nothing will change. The Party is in a tailspin.  This is perhaps their last chance to redeem themselves. If his new document stands unchallenged, Webb will have ample reason to think the way is clear to do what he pleases. He has surrounded himself, mostly, with toadies on the NB. One hopes that not all on the NB are toadies. The NC, though purged of many of its independent thinkers, still has healthy forces. It is unacceptable for a Communist party, a revolutionary party, to be headed by a person who does not share its beliefs. Would it be acceptable for a union leader openly to take the side of the employers? Some say, “Ignore him; we can do good work without him.” To believe that is a big mistake.  Stealthily for ten years, more or less openly for five years, he has been nudging the Party rightward. Most ignored his “class is too stiff” essay of 2000. Some ignored his speech to the Left Forum in 2004. They ignored his “Reflections on Socialism” in 2005. They ignored the dismantling process.  Physical dismantling included the bookstores, Party archives, the print PWW, and on and on.  Some, truly dead from the neck up, want to ignore even this document. Fence-sitting is no longer possible. Removing him from office and changing the line would start a recovery process.  When US imperialism was pushing deeper into the quagmire of the Vietnam War, Pete Seeger wrote about LBJ’s criminal folly in a famous antiwar ballad. He likened the escalation of the war to a US platoon commander who pushed his unit into the murky jungle river. The ballad’s unforgettable refrain was, “We’re waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the Big Fool says to push on.” Today, the CPUSA is “Waist deep in the Big Muddy.” Its members must act before the waters rise over our heads. Time is short. -End- ________________________________________________________________ Endnotes [1] http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-what-it-looks-like-what-it-says-and-what-it-does/ [2] It took him  more than ten years  to own up to the fact that he changed his politics in the 1990s. He says he has re-thought  his decision in the 1991 CPUSA versus Committees of Correspondence battle, but he won’t tell us why or how.Here is his idea of self-criticism: “Unfortunately, the "movement" of these broad social forces was not sustained in the post-election period.”  It takes gall to write such words,  when one  was advocating that the movement adjust itself to the politics of the Obama Administration, not vice versa. He goes on to be agnostic about what is responsible  for this “unfortunate” development. [3] “Reflections on Revisionism" (2005); ”From Revisionism to Party Liquidation"( 2008); “the Crisis of the CPUSA” (2009). All available at <<www.mltoday.com>> [4] “The task of a party of socialism in the 21st century is to give leadership to the movement as a whole, to be a force for broad working class and people's unity, to interconnect the particular and general demands of a multilayered social movement, to articulate a socialist vision and values – a challenge to be sure. We have no illusions that we can meet this challenge through our efforts alone.” [5] ”A party of socialism in the 21st century is internationalist in outlook and practice. And well it should be.” But then he also writes: “As for "Marxism-Leninism," the term should be retired in favor of simply "Marxism." ….it has a negative connotation among ordinary Americans, even in left and progressive circles. Depending on whom you ask, it either sounds foreign or dogmatic or undemocratic or all of these together. ” [6] In Thesis #11 he declares:  “I would strongly argue that the relationship between the two – class and democracy – is dialectical. Each interpenetrates and influences the other. Neither one can be fully realized apart from the other. And both interact in the context of a social process of capital accumulation. ” Clear? [7] Note that the process doesn’t work in reverse. In 2008-10 when the Democrats held, so to speak, two and one-half branches (the House, the Senate, a 5-4  balance on the US Supreme Court), there was no discussion that the political emergency was over and the ultra right was fading as the main danger. Webb has stealthily shifted the line. The mere existence of the ultra right, not its power, actual or potential, is the justification of the permanent CPUSA embrace of the Democratic Party. [8] “If I were asked to sum up what conclusions I reached it would be this: our theoretical structure – Marxism-Leninism – was too rigid and formulaic, our analysis too loaded with questionable assumptions, our methodology too undialectical, our structure too centralized, and our politics drifting from political realities. “ [9] ”... a party of socialism should make an unequivocal break with Stalin and his associates, not to please the enemies or critics of socialism, but to acknowledge to millions that the forced and violent collectivization of agriculture, the purges and executions of hundreds of thousands of communists and other patriots, the labor camps that incarcerated, exploited and sent untold numbers of Soviet people to early deaths, and the removal of whole peoples from their homelands can't be justified on the grounds of historical necessity or in the name of defending socialism. They were crimes against humanity. To describe these atrocities as a mistake is a mistake – criminal: yes, a horror: yes, a terrible stain on the values and ideals of socialism: definitely. To make matters worse, the practices of the Stalin regime set in place theoretical notions, structures and relations of governance, laws of socialist economy, justifications for concentrated power, and a great-leader syndrome that in the end weakened socialism in the USSR and other socialist countries. I can't speak for other parties, and have no desire to, but our party should be unequivocal in its condemnation of the Stalin regime.” [10]  A phrase directly borrowed from Browder, by the way. [11]  The donations bestowed on Obama by Wall Street were public information. See <<www.Opensecrets .org.>> [12] I was tempted to write “the line of the Party Convention.” The May 2010 convention was, as one comrade who attended declared, “more an exercise in crowd control than a Communist convention.“  See “Impressions of the CPUSA Convention” at www.mltoday.com. [13] “Marxism-Leninism versus Revisionism,”  Foster, Duclos, Dennis, Williamson, ed. by Weiss. 1946

Position of KKE on the Webb's platform and the developments in the CPUSA

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Athens, 13 April 2011

To the members and cadre of the CPUSA,
To the workers that struggle in the USA
To the communist and workers parties

Dear comrades,

In February 2011 the chairperson of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, published an article in Political Affairs, the electronic publication of the CPUSA, entitled “A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It Does”. Even if the specific article is accompanied by an editorial note which claims that “The following article represents the views of its author alone. It doesn't necessarily reflect the official views of any organization or collective.”, it is obvious to us that the public position of the head of a Communist Party concerning such an important issue requires special attention.

On the 16^th of February we received a letter from the editorial team of Political Affairs which invited us to send in our opinion.

Our party, after studying this article and the reactions it has provoked within the ranks of communists both in the USA and internationally, considers it necessary to take a public position through this letter, as is required by its responsibility as a part of the international communist movement.

Our assessment is that we are dealing with a comprehensive liquidationist platform of 29 theses which has been placed before the international communist movement and proposes the total revision of the principles and revolutionary traditions of the communist movement.

The KKE, as a section of the international communist movement, considers as its duty the refutation of this platform, which questions the need for the existence of a party of the working class in the USA, and in general is directed against the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement internationally. The 18^th Congress of our party stressed that “The battle against social-democratisation tendencies in Communist Parties – through the intervention of imperialist mechanisms, anti-communism and the bourgeois media – must be fought firmly and consistently by defending the historic role of the working class and its organised vanguard, the principles of Marxism-Leninism and of socialism. This task takes on even greater significance in face of the growing anti-communist offensive in the EU and internationally.”

Dear comrades,

The platform that has been presented today, through the article of the chairperson of the CPUSA, constitutes the culmination of a course of “adjustment” in the last decade as the author himself points out. There have already been developments in this intervening period which communists in Greece, as well as in the USA and other countries have monitored with concern, such as:

• The handing over of the Party’s archives to the imperialists, the bourgeois state of the USA in 2007.
• The closure of the print publication of the newspaper (People’s Weekly World) and the journal Political Affairs, with the simultaneous alteration of its character.
• The organizational shrinkage and dislocation of the party.
• The political “tailing”, behind one of the two pillars of the bourgeois political system of the USA, that is to say behind the Democratic Party.
• The stance in relation to the ambitions of US imperialism ( e.g. rejection of the demand for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq)
• The blocking of the Joint Statement of the Emergency Meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in Damascus, because in the final text there was the position for the withdrawal of the imperialist occupation forces from Iraq.
• These elements intensified after the 29^th Congress of the CPUSA. It was not by chance that immediately after the congress, an article was published in Political Affairs which called into question not only the need to maintain the name of the party, but the possibility and even the necessity of a Communist Party’s existence in the USA today.

Today the Webb platform comes as the culmination of this course and openly propagandises the abandonment of the Marxist-Leninist worldview, the abolition of democratic centralism, and the undermining of the principles of the party of a new type.

We would like to draw your attention to the following basic aspects of this platform:

• ON THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF THE PARTY

It proposes the replacement of our theory by an eclectic hotchpotch which does not go beyond the limits of liberal bourgeois ideology. It attacks Marxism-Leninism directly, which constitutes one of the central laws of the existence and activity of the party of the new type, as V.I.Lenin pointed out “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement… role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” In this specific platform various extremely old opportunist positions are promoted as new (e.g. Marxism-Leninism is foreign, anti-democratic, it is a distortion of Marxism by Stalin etc.), these are positions which disarm the labour movement and surrender it, without theoretical tools, to the claws of the exploitative system.

• ON THE QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY:

It promotes the view that there can be solutions in favour of the working class within the framework of capitalism. In this way, it promotes as an alternative solution the line of the so-called “green” capitalist restructurings. In addition, the Webb platform considers the characterisation of the crisis as a capitalist crisis of overproduction insufficient. It distorts the essence of the over-accumulation of capital as it associates it with…. A lack of investment opportunities. It states characteristically: “Short of a new New Green Deal on a global level, it is hard to see where the dynamism for a sustained upswing, let alone a long boom, is going to come from.”

These views recycle social-democratic and opportunist theories on economic recession and development which whitewash capitalism and conceal its class essence, leading the Communist Party to give up on its strategic goal and support political proposals, which have as their goal the acquisition of new super-profits by the capitalists, in the name of “ecology”, at the same time when they are turning nature and natural wealth into commodities, and destroying the planet in various ways.

• THE QUESTION OF THE SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE:

It renounces the struggle for socialism. The notion of revolution is entirely absent. It proposes an endless process of successive stages, in which the alliances will be formed not on the basis of the criterion of the era and the class interests of the working class. Webb proposes working for “- the balance of forces is to shift in a progressive direction”. This view condemns the party to submit itself to the temporary circumstances and not to work with a strategy for the overthrow of capitalism through the concentration of forces.

Nevertheless, it is obvious to us, that the tactics of a Communist Party must serve its strategy, which is the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a socialist-communist society. The position of Webb in practice abolishes the strategic goal of the Communist Party, and finally aims to shake the very character of the Communist Party. Socialism is in any case on the agenda, from the moment that we live in the era of imperialism, the highest and final stage of capitalism. The timeliness and necessity of socialism-communism is projected by the impasses of capitalism, the imperialist wars, the economic crises, the huge social, economic, environmental, ecological and other problems which capitalist society gives rise to. A Communist Party must form tactics and alliances which facilitate the concentration of forces, the class unity of the working class and the social alliance with the popular strata, with the aim of maturing the subjective factor for the acquisition of power by the working class, and not to be trapped in alliances and stages, which will lead it to struggle under a “foreign flag” in the logic of managing capitalism.

-ON THE QUESTION OF THE FORMATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

The Webb platform proposes moving beyond the Communist Parties. It says that “A party of socialism in the 21st century embraces Marxism, understood as a broad theoretical tradition that reaches beyond the communist movement.” A party that does not struggle for the interests of the working class but “fights for the interests of the entire nation.”

This position denies the necessity of the existence of the Communist Party in the USA and indeed in the entire world. The KKE successfully dealt with similar views, when they emerged in our party 20 years ago under the influence of “Gorbachevist” theories. The communists of Greece fought hard to repel these opportunist views, for the preservation of the KKE, for the preservation and strengthening of its revolutionary, class and internationalist character. Today, 20 years later, the communists not only in Greece but all over the world can judge the positive results that the outcome of this battle had for the KKE. The KKE was able to stand on its feet, to elaborate serious theoretical and political issues, without deviating from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It approved its new programme and came to important conclusions concerning the causes of the overthrow of socialism, enriching its conception of socialism. It has taken significant initiatives for the unity of the communist movement at a regional and international level. It strengthened its bonds with the working class and the other popular strata. The influence of its positions and its prestige has been strengthened as it plays the leading role in the regrouping and development of the class-oriented labour-trade union movement and in the tough strike mobilizations of the workers in our country.

None of the above would have been achieved, if opportunism had prevailed 20 years ago in the KKE. The KKE would have gone down the road of dissolution and the labour-popular movement would have lost its basic pillar of support.

-ON IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE

The Webb platform renounces the struggle against bourgeois ideology and opportunism. The party which Webb describes surrenders from the ideological struggle. He writes “A party of socialism in the 21st century doesn’t turn – liberals, advocates of identity politics, single issue movements, centrist and progressive leaders of major social organizations, social democrats, community based non-profits, NGOs, unreliable allies, and the “people” (according to some, a classless category concealing class, racial, and gender oppression) – into enemies.”

But can a Communist Party enlighten the working class, the other popular strata, if it does not have an ideological front against views which present capitalism as the only way, which simply promote different types of management of the exploitative system? The answer of the KKE to this is that it is impossible for the struggle of the people to develop without a firm and consistent ideological front against unscientific bourgeois and opportunist theories. This is especially true in today’s conditions, when the role of the various NGOs has become obvious, which are connected financially and in other ways with the imperialist organizations. In conditions when social-democracy has been in government and has demonstrated in practice that is a pillar of support for the bourgeois political system. In these conditions the communists not only must not give up on ideological work and struggle, but they must intensify the struggle even further against these forces.

-ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNISM

Webb rejects the Leninist organization, the organization of the vanguard of the working class which corresponds to the needs of the class struggle for the abolition of exploitation. He rejects the Leninist organization because he rejects the struggle for socialism and has taken sides with the bourgeois class for the perpetuation of capitalism.

And so, a state machine which is both experienced and powerful will be opposed by a “party”, according to him, based on the Internet, with an open door policy for new members as an organizational principle: “Joining should be no more difficult than joining other social organizations”.

Thus we can see that not only does he reject the tried and tested organizational principles of the Communist Party of a new type, which were established in the era of Lenin, but he promotes the idea of a party of an NGO type, which corresponds to the content which he himself proposes and is in the direction of a “Communist Party” assimilated into the bourgeois system, which will work for the salvation and “correction” of capitalism and not for its overthrow.

-A PARTY OF REVOLUTION OR REFORM?

Reform is the answer given by Webb to this fundamental question, which was posed a hundred years ago. His view denies that the party is the vanguard of the working class and subordinates its activity to the lowest level of class consciousness (“A party of socialism in the 21st century takes as its point of departure the issues that masses (relative term) are ready to fight for”). Of course a reformist line is proposed as well as the prioritization of the intervention in the institutions of the bourgeois state. The struggle for reforms within imperialism is acclaimed not only as a “means” buts an end for this “new” party.

In reality, when has the path of reforming the capitalist system ever led to the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the vindication of the workers’ desires? The “recipe” of reforms has been tested by the peoples through various social-democratic and centre-left governments, which in practice have been proved to be the main vehicles for the imposition of anti-people and anti-worker measures, and as pillars of support for the imperialist organizations and wars.

-“MARXISM”…WITHOUT MARX

Webb calls the class nature of bourgeois democracy into question. As he writes: “What I’m challenging is the notion that everything is subordinate to class and class struggle no matter what the circumstances.” He questions the class nature of the bourgeois state, that is to say the dictatorship of the US monopolies and claims that “Thus the nature of the struggle isn’t simply the people against the state, but the people winning positions and influence in the state and then utilizing them to make changes (within and outside of the state)”.

This is an old opportunist position which Marx had already rejected in his era, and was revived by the bankrupt eurocommunist current. And this alone would be enough for us to come to the conclusion that the “Marxism”, which is mentioned as being the theoretical basis of the “party of the 21^st century”, has nothing to do with Marx and his theoretical contribution but aims at its vulgar distortion, the burying of revolutionary theory, and the deception of the workers.

• ILLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE MONOPOLIES:

The Webb platform fosters illusions and works for the submission of the people to the government of the USA, that is to say the world’s leading imperialist power: “The point isn’t for the U.S. government to simply to crawl into a national shell, but to reinsert itself into world affairs on the basis of cooperation, peace, equality, and mutual benefits…”

At the same time he fosters illusions concerning a “ humanized” version of the monopolies: “big sections of the transnational corporate class have pulled the plug on the American people, economy, and state…the commitment of major sections of the transnational elite to a people-friendly public sector, a vibrant domestic economy and a modern society has waned…”

As the Chairperson of the CPUSA has given up on a class approach to society, the abovementioned positions are to be expected. These are positions which not only have nothing to do with the history and struggles of the party he represents, but they bear no relation to reality either. The continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the new imperialist war in Libya demonstrate what kind of activity the US government has developed outside its “national shell”. And it conducts similar anti-people activity for the defence of the interests of the monopolies inside its own country.

• ESCALATING THE LINE OF “TAILING” CAPITAL AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The strengthening of political reaction which is intrinsic to imperialism and is intensifying in the conditions of crisis is interpreted as “ultra-right extremism”. This leads to conclusions which violate the truth and reality, such as “we say too definitively that the independent forces stand no chance whatsoever of taking over the Democratic Party. That still may be the case, but it is a mistake to rule it out completely at this point.” The equation of the working class and its movement with the trade union bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO is consistent with the political line of alliance with sections of capital.

• TURNING TO ANTICOMMUNISM

Webb’s article marks an overt siding with the class enemy and a complete alignment with contemporary state-level anticommunism. It calls for “an unequivocal break with Stalin” and lines up with the slanderous assault on socialist construction which offered so much to the Soviet peoples and played the decisive role in the anti-fascist victory of the peoples. In essence, these positions attempt to conceal the reality, the complex problems of the class struggle in the USSR and the tough confrontation of working class power with the bourgeois class in the countryside, the kulaks.

It adopts, in essence, every kind of slanderous simplification of complex problems, such as the sharpening of the class struggle in the USSR. The article goes a step further and joins up with Havel, Walesa and all the reactionary anticommunists of the EU who talk of “crimes against humanity”. It lines up with the tendency that attempts to criminalise the Communist Parties and the defence of socialism: “τo describe these atrocities as a mistake is a mistake – criminal”.

As is well known the opportunist current in Europe that forms the so called Party of the European Left (ELP) holds a similar anti-historical position.

Dear comrades of the CPUSA,

Members, friends and cadre of the CPUSA,

Conscious Workers of the US,

At this very critical moment for your party the KKE calls on you to take into account that the ideological attack against the Party of a New Type focusing on its identity, its character and its organisational principles was unleashed from the very first moment of its existence. The revisionists have always supported the dissolution of the party of the working class; they have always been a pillar of support for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class and its supporters understood from the very first moment the role of the party in the political emancipation of the working class and its movement. The ideological attack which was unleashed continues up to the present day as is demonstrated by Webb’s article.

We call on you to take into account the fact that the party can only fulfil the role of the proletarian vanguard on the condition that it is equipped with unity of will, unity of action, and unity of strict discipline. Its internationalist character stems from its nature; it constitutes an integral part of the world communist movement.

Experience confirms and practice which is the yardstick of truth proves that the revolutionary line of struggle not only does not restrict mass work but it reinforces it. It strengthens the expectations of the working people, it provides a way-out and a perspective, it contributes to the change of the correlation of forces. The independent action of the party is a prerequisite for the formation of a policy of alliances that will be subordinated to and serve the strategy for the overthrow of capitalism.

In addition, we consider it necessary to take into account that the necessity of the socialist revolution and the construction of the new communist socio-economic formation is not determined by the correlation of forces, which is shaped at the various historical junctures, but by the historical need to resolve the basic contradiction between capital and labour. The counterrevolutions in the USSR and the other socialist countries have not altered the character of our era which is an era of transition from capitalism to socialism which is timely and necessary as shown by the tragedy of the millions of workers and unemployed who suffer from exploitation and the intensification of the problems that the exploitative system causes.

We believe that the replacement of the principles of Marxism Leninism by revisionist approaches in the name of national peculiarities caused a great deal of damage to the communist movement and continues to do so. No national peculiarity can negate the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, the necessity for the conquest of political power by the working class, for the socialisation of production and central planning. The economic crisis that broke out in the capitalist world and the intensification of the inter-imperialist contradictions further highlight the timeliness of socialism. Under these conditions the driving back of the new wave of state anticommunism, the defence of the socialism we knew, of its great contribution to the world working class, of the identity and the revolutionary traditions of the communist movement acquire a special importance.

Dear comrades,

Historical experience, the developments themselves have refuted the views that spoke of “the end of history”, the “obsolescence of Marxism-Leninism” and the “end of the Communist Parties”. On the contrary, today there is a stronger need for the existence of Communist Parties that have roots in the working class and the workplaces, which believe in Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The labour movement must consciously act and rise to the challenge to ensure the existence of a revolutionary party of the working class. This is a crucial duty and a challenge for the most advanced workers and for communists in all the countries of the world and of course above all in the USA.

The consistent confrontation with and rejection of this opportunist-liquidationist platform is a requirement which springs from the historical traditions the labour and communist movement in the USA, it is a condition for the revival of revolutionary communist ideals in the US labour movement and society.

The International Relations Section of the CC of KKE

(Houston Purge Part 2) This is what democracy looks like! in the CPUSA

By James Thompson
As many people know, I have been “dropped” from membership in the CPUSA. This article will present the exact exchange between me and various characters in the national leadership who have corresponded with me over this issue. It is important for the working class to be well aware of how their party treats their membership. Through education, this author hopes that an informed working class will fight for control of the party that historically has best represented them in this country and around the world.

Here is a letter sent to Sam Webb and Jarvis Tyner as well as a number of party officials requesting an appeal of the decision to “drop” me.

This letter was sent on 7/29/12 at 8:10pm.

Dear Sam and Jarvis –
I would like to appeal the decision by the National Board to “drop” me from membership in the CPUSA. I want to exercise my right under Article VII, Section 6 of the CPUSA constitution to appeal the decision to “drop” me from membership to the National Committee.
This letter is being submitted not just on my behalf, but on behalf of the members of the original Houston club who have discussed it at a club meeting and agreed that I submit it as well. I came to the realization that I have a duty to defend myself as well as the members of our club who have elected me through democratic process to be their club chair.

In the July 8, 2012 e-mail from John Bachtell to me, the party informed me that I have been “dropped from membership.” Here is the exact letter:

“Hi Pat,
We are sending this email after numerous attempts to speak with you in person and by phone, without response.
It is clear your continued actions are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party USA. Therefore, based on a discussion in the National Board you have been dropped from membership.
Please turn over all Party records and finances in your possession to the newly organized and officially recognized Houston club.
If you have any questions about this action please feel free to call me at ……..
John Bachtell
CPUSA
July 8, 2012”

I don’t have the power to hand over the money or anything else without the democratic consent of the club. The original Houston club voted on July 4, 2012 not to hand over the money or anything else to the new club by 9-0.
By this letter I appeal to the National Committee to reverse this decision to drop me. There have been no charges made against me, only that my “continued actions are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party USA.”

What “continued actions?” The national leadership has not asked me to discontinue any actions.

I assert that the CPUSA constitution has been egregiously violated by this letter to me from John Bachtell.

Bachtell’s e-mail letter does not adhere to the provisions of the Party’s Constitution under Article VII (Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals). His e-mail violates Section 1 since I have never been informed of the charges against me. Section 3 was violated in that no charges were made against me to the original Houston club. Also, no trial committee was elected and did not hear charges, or make recommendations. Section 4 was violated in that I was never notified of the charges against me. Section 5 was violated in that there was no trial committee and no votes were taken. Disciplinary measures have not been reported to the original Houston club, i.e. the club of which I am not only a member, but am the duly democratically elected club chair. There has not been an automatic review of my expulsion (let’s not mince words since that is what happened) by any bodies within the CPUSA.
When I heard in mid June that there was a possibility that Bachtell might visit Houston, I sent an email to him (June 13th) inviting him to meet with the Houston Club. I received no reply to my email and heard nothing from the Texas district leadership. My wife and I left for a pre-scheduled weekend getaway in San Antonio on Friday June 29th with a plan to return on Sunday evening July 1st. I had a prearranged conference call scheduled for the evening of July 1st. Monday, July 2nd was a workday for me (and for many others). I had a full schedule of appointments. Bachtell’s first email to me came on Sat., June 30th after he had already arrived in Houston.
Why was it not possible for him to correspond with me to work out his schedule in Houston before he arrived either by e-mail or phone? Am I being “dropped” because I was out of town or at work and could not make a meeting?
Here is the exact sequence of e-mails between John Bachtell and me leading up to the letter dropping me from membership. First you will note my e-mail to John Bachtell inviting him to meet with the whole Houston club issued on June 13. I sent this e-mail because I was hearing rumors that they were coming to Houston. I had not received any official notice from district or national leadership about the visit at this point.

“On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
Dear John -
We have talked over the phone in the past.
We understand that you are likely to come to Houston in the near future. We certainly would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our points of common ground as well as differences. Some members have already expressed interest in such a meeting. We want to work together to build maximum unity and resolve differences in a mutually respectful and beneficial manner.
However, we don’t know the details of your visit. Please let us know if you would be available to meet with us and if you need us to make arrangements for a meeting place, etc.
We look forward to welcoming you to Houston.
Peace & solidarity
Pat Thompson
Club Chair, Houston Communist Party”

I received no response to my e-mail until June 30 at which time I was vacationing in San Antonio with my wife. Here is the first response I received from John Bachtell:

“From: John Bachtell
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:21:50 -0500
To: Paul Subject: Re: Meeting in Houston
Hi Pat,
As you know Juan and I are in Houston. We along with Bernard would like to meet with you while we are here. We propose 7 pm Sunday at the Kim Son restaurant (downtown at 59th and Jefferson)
Please let me know if this is good for you.
Sincerely,
John”

I responded with the following e-mail:

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM, wrote:
My wife and I are in San Antonio now. I asked Bernard about the meeting last Sunday at our monthly meeting and he said he didn’t know anything about the meeting with you and Juan.
We will return to Houston tomorrow, however I have scheduled a phone call with a Union brother from NY at the time you propose.
I would be happy to meet with you the next time you are in Houston. Please show us the courtesy of giving us advance notice so that we can gather the whole club together to meet with you. We feel that informing us at the last minute is disrespectful.
Pat ”

John responded to my e-mail at 10:54am on July 1, 2012 with the following e-mail:

“Hi Pat,
Thanks for returning my email. We have also made several attempts to reach you by phone and have left messages to schedule a meeting with you. We have not gotten a response yet.
We would be happy to meet with you anytime and anyplace at your convenience Sunday or Monday until midafternoon when we depart.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
John Bachtell”

As you can see from the sequence of e-mails, Bachtell proposed a meeting with me individually at the end of their visit. Since I had not been given the opportunity to plan this meeting, it was impossible for me to meet with John and Juan at the end of their visit. You can see from my e-mail that I offered to meet with them in the future if they give me the opportunity to plan and schedule a meeting with them. This offer still stands.

I should point out that I have been a loyal member of the CPUSA since 2003. I have written hundreds of articles for the People’s Weekly World and People’s World using the names James Thompson and Paul Hill. I attended the 2005 convention in Chicago as a delegate from Texas and wrote the article covering the convention’s solidarity action with the staff on strike at the Congress Hotel. I have attended party meetings in St. Louis on African American equality. I have attended state conventions in Texas in Austin. I have attended district meetings in El Paso and in Oakland. I participated in the march on Wall Street and marched alongside Jarvis Tyner and Libero della Piana in 2009. In fact, I made up the slogans and hand printed the posters for that march. I attended the march on Washington for Jobs on 10/2/10 and helped Bill Davis and others organize the party presence there. I attended an anti-war march in Washington, DC and marched with the party contingent, distributed PWWs and helped set up the party table and helped clean up. I wrote the first article for the PWW after Hurricane Katrina covering the survivors in Houston. I wrote many articles for the PWW that were printed on the front page including an article on an AFL-CIO action in Little Rock, Arkansas. I wrote many centerpiece articles, including one on waterboarding and one on immigration and detention of undocumented workers. I covered the BP disaster in Texas City in which many workers died. I covered the Essence music festival in Houston and went to an anti-war march in New Orleans where I distributed PWWs and wrote up the event for the paper. I covered two AFL-CIO Martin Luther King day celebrations, one in Houston and one in New Orleans. Most recently, I have launched a campaign to overturn the anti-Communist law in Texas which prohibits Communists from running for public office or holding state government jobs. All of this has been done on a volunteer basis and I have received no remuneration from the party for any of these activities. I have participated in fundraising for Democratic Party candidates for U.S. House of Representatives candidates in Houston and informed Jarvis Tyner and district leadership of this effort. I have participated in the Labor Neighbor program through the AFL-CIO and have been a regular supporter of the Justice for Janitors effort by SEIU in Houston. I have written numerous articles supporting both. I attended the Jobs with Justice conference in Providence, R.I. with Texas district leadership. I attended the Texas state AFL-CIO convention in Corpus Christi when state district leadership could not due to illness. I attended and voted for the endorsement of Single Payer Health Care which was ultimately endorsed by the Texas state AFL-CIO convention in Corpus Christi. I have worked for Democratic Party candidates dating back to George McGovern. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention for Jesse Jackson in 1988. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention in 2004 for Dennis Kucinich. I was a delegate to the Texas state Democratic Party convention in Fort Worth and attended with Texas CPUSA district leadership.
It is not easy living in Houston, home of George H. W. Bush and Tom DeLay (I worked very hard on the AFL-CIO effort to replace Tom DeLay with Democrat Nick Lampson, which was successful). It is even more difficult to organize a CPUSA club here in the deep South. In fact, from 2003 until 2009, there was no Houston club of the CPUSA. I changed that and built a vibrant, thriving club.
Some comrades have asked the question, “Why can’t there be two CPUSA clubs in the fourth largest city in the United States of America?” Our original club recognizes the right of the new club to form and we wish it every success in building the party. On the other hand, the new club and the national leadership have attempted to impose the dissolution of our original club on us. Our club is perplexed by these maneuvers and we don’t understand how dropping my membership and dissolving our club will help build the party and how this will help build working class power.
We are requesting clarification and are appealing the decision to “drop” me from membership in the CPUSA.
 I am requesting that copies of this letter be distributed to all members of the national committee as well as the national board.
Peace & solidarity
James Thompson
Club Chair, Houston Communist Party
PHill1917@comcast.net

To my knowledge, the CPUSA leadership ignored my request that my letter be distributed to all the members of the National Committee. Instead, they sent this letter to the National Committee:
“To: National Committee
From: National Board
Dear comrades,
Many of you are aware we have been dealing with a destructive factional situation in the Houston club for the past several years. National and district leaders have made many attempts to resolve this situation to no avail.
The club leader, Pat Thompson, had established a website which consistently carried out anti-Party attacks on our democratically arrived at policy, national convention decisions and personal attacks on our leaders.
We had repeatedly asked Thompson to cease the public attacks and remove anti-Party material from the website. Because he refused to comply, the CPUSA issued a statement late last year which publicly disassociated the Party from the website.
Thompson had also reposted numerous articles from the Marxism-Leninism Today website, another source of anti-party attacks generated by former members.
Additionally, Thompson invited a former leader of the CPUSA to a club meeting with the expressed purpose of aligning the club with an opposition network and, failing to change Party policy, to form a new communist party.
This May we received a communication from members of the club seeking intervention. They explained they were not in agreement with the attacks on the Party and had been waging a struggle against the factionalism. They had hoped to solve the problem internally but this proved not possible. The factional activity led to a paralysis of the club and the acrimony drove away members.
The National Board with the agreement of the TX district leadership, asked John Bachtell and Juan Lopez to visit Houston at the end of June with the purpose of responding to the request for help, including establishing a new party club if necessary and meeting with as many members, new and old, as possible.
John and Juan made repeated efforts to meet with Thompson, but were rebuffed. They concluded Thompson was unwilling to meet.
They held numerous meetings with members and friends and assisted in the establishment of a new club of comrades who support the party policy and seek to be integrated into the national and state organization. As it turned out over 70% of the membership supported this direction.
Since its establishment the new club has fully immersed itself in activity, including the rolling janitor’s strike turning Houston upside down, built a website and Facebook page, begun fundraising and building a treasury, written several articles for the People’s World, sought to renew its mass ties and continued outreach to new members.
On July 5, Juan and John reported the results of their visit to the National Board. The NB decided to officially recognize the new club as the sole representative of the Communist Party in Houston and drop Pat Thompson from Party membership for his egregious acts of factionalism in open violation of the CPUSA constitution.
The NB informed Thompson of this in a letter. Thompson appealed the decision on the basis that he had not been informed of the charges and asked for a hearing. Meanwhile, the website he operates that claims to speak for the Communist Party of Houston continued to attack Party policy and leaders.
The National Board, with the agreement of the Texas District leadership adopted the following;
To allow someone so openly and clearly anti-party to exploit the democratic provisions in our constitution to continue to attack the Party and embroil us in a prolonged internal dispute is not in the interests of the Party.
Given Thompson’s history, proceedings would no doubt be trumpeted widely on the Internet and social media. To publicly engage the Party in a fight that will consume vast amounts of time and energy would only serve his interests and anti-Party factional elements around him.
 Therefore, on August 2 the National Board rejected Thompson’s appeal.”

John Bachtell “just followed orders” when he sent a letter to me on 8/9/12 rejecting my appeal of the decision to “drop me”:

Hi Pat,
We received your appeal of the July 5 decision to drop you from membership in the Communist Party USA for egregious acts of factionalism in violation of the CPUSA constitution.
Even after your appeal, the website that you operate, which claims to speak for the Communist Party of Houston, continues to attack Party policy and leaders.
To allow anyone so openly and clearly anti-party to exploit the democratic provisions in our constitution to continue to attack the Party and embroil us in a prolonged internal dispute is not in our interests.
On August 2, the National Board, vested according to the CPUSA constitution with the authority to act for the good and welfare of the entire Party, rejected your appeal.
National Board
CPUSA”

Comrades, brothers and sisters, people of the working class:
It is time that we stand up for our interests and fight for a better world, not for better imperialism. Don’t sit at home, do nothing and “just follow orders”. It is time for working people to fight for their party, the CPUSA.
Although I have been expelled from the party, I still consider myself to be a member of the party. I am just one person. The people on the National Board seem to have been elevated to a superior position as compared with the National Committee and certainly the National Convention. The National Board is made up of just a few people. If you add the entire National Board and myself together it does not make up even a recognizable fraction of the working people in the USA. It is time for working people to step up to the plate and demand respect for the membership of our party and demand respect for the working people from our party, the CPUSA.
Furthermore, the Houston club (original) rejects its expulsion and attempt at dissolution by the national leadership of the CPUSA. It rejects the expulsion of its duly democratically elected chair. It demands that the leadership of the CPUSA stop its unconstitutional activity and return to the proud tradition of the party in opposing imperialism and anti-working class activities in all its forms. We must fight for the working class, not against it.

Comrades, brothers and sisters, people of the working class:
Don’t tell yourselves, “it can’t happen here.” If it can happen in Houston, it can happen anywhere.
Stand up for your rights! Unite and fight for a better world through socialism and democracy! “Don’t cling so hard to your possessions, because you’ve got nothing if you’ve got no rights!”
PHill1917@comcast.net

(Houston Purge Part 1) Will The Real Communist Party Please Stand Up?

Written by James Thompson

As the CPUSA slides off into ideological, philosophical and political obscurity and isolation, we in Houston have been privileged to witness the party in action, no pun intended. CPUSA leadership has received sharp criticism from Houston as well as around the country and across the globe. There has been no detectable response from leadership to the sharp criticism. However, there has been a recent flurry of self-destructive activity rather than any kind of logical, reasonable advocacy of their untenable positions or any attempts to engage in fair and open dialogue and debate. The CPUSA, under the leadership of Sam Webb, has embarked upon tactics to deal with their local clubs which might be characterized as similar to the mindless game shows that people watch on TV. The script goes like this: anointed party leaders arrive unannounced in cities where there are clubs which challenge the political line of the leadership. At this point, they start the game show which might be called “Will the real Communist Party please stand up?” They typically meet with the most troubled and troublesome members of the club they are trying to dissolve. They also contact people who have contacted the party website recently. They meet with these people individually, not as a group. The attempt is to isolate the members of the original club and split off the weaker and newer members. As they meet with these individuals, the fun starts. They denounce the original club as not being recognized as a legitimate club of the CPUSA. They announce the formation of a new club which is fully recognized and anointed by CPUSA leadership. They attempt to peel off the members of the original club and fold them into the new club. They also seek to swallow the club’s resources with one gulp and attempt to slander the original club’s leadership. The end of the game show is always disappointing because only the most craven sycophants of the party leadership win the kiss of death from the CPUSA leadership. And kiss of death they do get. Once the fun is over, the new club is left to fend for itself without any support from leadership. Typically, these new clubs fade out quickly and cease to function. In Houston, the story follows the rigid script as discussed in an earlier article by A. Shaw posted on this website [<<www.houstoncommunists.com>>]. This script has been played out in many cities and is currently playing in Houston and the Northeast and the West. It is probably playing in other areas of the country as well. In Houston, I am the elected chair of the Houston Communist Party. Leadership arrived in Houston on June 29, 2012 and started meeting individually with club members. They did not respond to an invitation issued by me on June 13, 2012 to plan and organize a meeting with all the members of the club. Instead, they contacted me by phone and e-mail on June 30, 2012 and proposed to meet with me individually and immediately. At the time they contacted me, I was in San Antonio on vacation with my wife. I responded that I was not available and that they should show me courtesy and respect when they request a meeting with me. I told them I would be happy to organize a meeting of the entire club to hold a reasonable and respectful dialogue with them, but needed advance notice in order to plan such a meeting. They persisted in only requesting an individual meeting with me. They made no mention of any charges against me in this contact. On July 10, 2012, one of the party leaders sent me an e-mail informing me that I had been “dropped” from membership in the CPUSA. In doing so, they clearly violated Article VII of the party constitution which reads: ARTICLE VII – Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals SECTION 1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, any member or officer of the Party may be reprimanded, put on probation, suspended for a specified period, removed from office, dropped or expelled from the Party for actions detrimental to the interests of the Party and the working class, for factionalism, for making false statements in an application for membership, for financial irregularities, or for advocacy or practice of racial, national or religious discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. No action, including dropping, may be taken against a member without notifying him or her of the action and the reason for it. Assistance should be given to help comrades to overcome weaknesses and shortcomings, when possible. SECTION 2. Subject to the provisions of this Article, any member shall be expelled from the Party who is a strikebreaker, a provocateur, engaged in espionage, an informer, or who advocates force and violence or terrorism, or who participates in the activities of any group which acts to undermine or overthrow any democratic institutions through which the majority of the American people can express their right to determine their destiny. SECTION 3. Charges against individual members or committees may be made by any member or Party committee to the club of which the accused is a member or to the appropriate higher committee having jurisdiction. All such charges shall be handled expeditiously by an elected trial committee of the club or appropriate higher body. The trial committee shall hear charges, make recommendations and then disband. SECTION 4. All accused persons concerned in disciplinary cases, except publicly self-admitted informers and provocateurs, must be notified of the charges against them, shall have the right to appear, to bring witnesses, including non-members if agreed to by the trial committee, and to testify. The burden of proof shall be on the accusers. SECTION 5. After hearing the report of the trial committee, the club or leading committee having jurisdiction shall have the right to decide by a two-thirds vote upon any disciplinary measure, including expulsion. Disciplinary measures taken by leading committees shall be reported to the club of each accused member. Higher bodies must be informed of all disciplinary actions above a reprimand. There shall be an automatic review of all expulsions by the next higher body. SECTION 6. Any member or committee that has been subject to disciplinary action has the right to appeal to the next higher body up to the National Convention, whose decision shall be final. The National, State (or District) or other leading committee shall set a hearing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appeal and notify the appellant of the hearing date. When, however, the appeal is to a State, District or National Convention, the appeal shall be acted upon by the Convention following the filing of the appeal, provided that such appeal is made at least 30 days prior to the convention. So, in Houston, the game show evolved into a new twist. The new twist is “Will the real Communist please stand up?” It should be noted that the leader of the new, officially recognized club of the CPUSA, according to reports from party members in other parts of the country, is a former member of the Spartacist league in California. He has a history of campaigning against the United Farmworkers and called for workers to break the strike of the farmworkers because Cesar Chavez was a “bourgeois sellout.” This individual has not written a single article for the party press. I, on the other hand, have a history of writing hundreds of articles for the party press to include the People’s Weekly World and People’s World. Many of these articles were reproduced on the Texas Communist Party website. More recently, I have published articles in the Morning Star, People’s Voice and Unity, the paper of the Irish Communist Party. The leader of the newly christened club in Houston has attacked me for not following “Democratic Centralism.” It should be remembered that Democratic Centralism refers to “diversity of opinion and unity of action.” Currently, the CPUSA viciously quashes any diversity of opinion and proposes no action which might unify the party. Indeed, leadership turned up its nose at an effort to overturn anti-Communist laws in Texas proposed by this writer. Instead of supporting this effort, they dropped me from membership in the party. Which side are they on? One of the prominent members of the newly christened club contributed to the article posted on the Houston website entitled “Sam Webb: which side are you on?” Indeed, all club members fully supported the article at the time it was posted including the new leader of the split off sycophantic club. The treachery and hypocrisy of this new club created in the image of CPUSA leadership is obvious. People in Houston are perplexed by the heavy-handed party process. They are having a hard time believing that national leadership can blow into town unannounced and collude with the sneakiest and most negative elements of the club to split and divide a functioning and growing club. They are not used to being robbed of their basic democratic rights and being subjected to the dictates of an Imperial CPUSA. Although the party leadership has proposed the abandonment of basic party concepts such as the vanguard role of the party, class struggle, Leninism, democratic centralism and seeks to censor any discussion of party policy, a few individuals can always be enlisted in an attempt to undermine a truly working class organization. Indeed, people like me who disagree with the policy of supporting uncritically the imperialist Obama administration are quickly dropped from party membership without regard to the constitutional process. This says nothing about the destruction of the party press and publications and the failure to fight against anti-Communist laws across the country. This says nothing about the delivery of important party documents and artifacts to a bourgeois university for safekeeping. This says nothing about the failure of the party to run candidates for public office since the 1980s. This says nothing about the proposal of party leadership to drop the words “Communist” and “party.” This says nothing about the four international Communist Parties (Greece, Mexico, Canada and Germany) who have sharply, publicly and openly criticized the political line of the CPUSA. The Houston Communist Party has been attacked from the left by anarchists and Trotskyites who have sought to demoralize us. We have been attacked by CPUSA national leadership. We have been attacked by right wing ideologues such as Glenn Beck. We view these attacks as confirmation that we are headed in the right direction. We are here to stay. We are growing. We will not back down. We will continue to stand up for the working class because we are of, by and for the working class. It is clear which side our attackers and detractors are on. It is clear which side we are on. Our interests and the interests of the CPUSA leadership are irreconcilable. July 11, 2012 http://houstoncommunistparty.com/will-the-real-communist-party-please-stand-up/