This thread has started up (thanks, Doug) just as I've been reading Ellen Schrecker's *Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America*, which argues that many of the CPUSA's more self-destructive official policies (secrecy, top-down decision-making, etc.) were formulated in response to red-baiting, illegal government harassment, and so forth, mostly because the gov't and the business interests to which it was/is beholden were scared shitless of how efficient communists were in union organizing and operating, and in advocating for everyone and everything other folks were too timid to touch, such as meaningful racial integration and equality. Like some of the discussion on this thread, she is careful to separate the weaknesses of the Party's official strategies and policies from the extraordinary dedication and commitment of its members.
This has been borne out by my own experience with former communists here in Chicago. In spite of the fact that many of them are now in their eighties and some in failing health, they come out for every demonstration against strawberry growers, for UPS, for the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and Chicago Jobs with Justice; they volunteer to call on congresspersons, stamp envelopes, clean up meeting halls, you name it, with an energy-level and apparent optimism in spite of everything that shames me.
So, in response to Doug, I'm not sure that it's too early to begin de-demonizing the term "communist." Why not start now, while these folks are still around? While we and folks coming up can still learn from them? Tony, I'm wondering how the "afterlife" of former CP people in Australia might be different from here in the States, where most people still feel it's something to be cautious about talking about...?
Jamie
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Tony Evans wrote:
> We (Australian coms) used to say that the ex-coms were the largest group in
> society as there were always so many more of them than card the carrying
> members. Now of course I'm an ex-com as well because the Party here disbanded
> just before the Wall came down.
>
> All the mass movements are suffering as a consequence of the demise of the
> "revolutionary" left, but particulaly the unions. A generation of activists are
> coming of age without the experience and perspective provided by the hard-nosed
> (but generally pragmatic) analysis that the Party used to provide through it's
> internal debates.
>
> Tony Evans
>
> michael perelman wrote:
>
> > Let me second Doug's analysis of the communist party. His example of the
> > taxi drivers suggest that it was not so much the policies of the party but
> > the people. I cannot think of a group that seemed to have more good people
> > (and not just good in a political sense) than the ex-communists that I have
> > met.
> >
> > Of course, to some extent, this kind of person gravitated to the party; but
> > even so the party helped many to gain a sense of community and political
> > experience that might have been difficult otherwise.
> >
> > Louis Proyect has told stories of the contributions of the Trotskyist
> > movement to union organizing. I do not know many of those people -- only
> > the Hal Draper and the Independent Socialists that I knew in Berkeley. So I
> > do not know how to compare and contrast the contributions of the two groups.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>
>
>