Only one post in today. Don't know how to delete the below
bla bla bla before the post. (Dumb terminal , no mouse) Michael
Pugliese
>From: Communist-Party at yahoogroups.com
>To: Communist-Party at yahoogroups.com
>Date: 5/8/01 12:21:09 PM
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Communist-Party-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
>To read the updated pre-convention discussion documents, go
to http://www.cpusa.org/27th_convention/discussion_docs/index.html
>
>To learn more about the Communist Party, send an email to CPUSA at cpusa.org
or visit our website at http://www.cpusa.org
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There is 1 message in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. More of the same
> From: Michael Corral <mcorral at mediaone.net>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Corral <mcorral at mediaone.net>
>Subject: More of the same
>
>Once again, it appears that as soon as this list starts to delve
into some
>particularly thorny issue (previously Stalin, now religion),
we start to
>hear calls to end the discussion and "get back on track" with
the "real
>purpose" of the list. Apparently that "real purpose" includes
avoiding any
>real in-depth discussion of anything too controversial. Instead,
we are
>urged by "the moderators" and some unnamed "working groups"
to stick to
>someone's idea of a suitable list of topics. But if basic and
fundamental
>ideological issues are not suitable for Pre-Convention discussion,
then
>really, what is? In fact, the Pre-Convention discussion period
is the
>perfect time for exploring these issues. When else are we going
to do it?
>I've been in the Party long enough to know what "we'll have
to leave this
>for another day" really means.
>
>In fact, I was amazed at the level of discussion on Stalin.
I joined the
>Party in 1984 (at the age of 18), and this is the first time
I can ever
>recall there being any kind of even semi-organized discussion
of this
>explosive issue. It's something that simply was not discussed
before, not
>in any kind of depth. We can't have our heads in the sand on
this one.
>Anyone who thinks that workers in the U.S. are going to join
our Party
>without us dealing with the Stalin issue is living in a fantasy
world.
>Let's talk about it more, not shut it off. This is not "minutae".
>
>To me, this myopia is a symptom of an economic determinist tendency
I've
>noticed in our Party. I think too many comrades see workers
as mere
>economic units who are concerned only about trade union, economic
and
>"bread and butter" issues. There seems to be an assumption that
workers do
>not care about ideology, history and "too theoretical" issues.
Of course
>that is absolutely false. Workers definitely do care about these
things
>(they certainly do here in Michigan, I've seen that from talking
with
>autoworkers in several plants here). Until we provide some satisfactory
>answers to basic ideological questions that workers have about
communism,
>they simply will not join the Party. During our recent club
conference, a
>comrade talked about how much work the Party in Detroit did
to save the
>Dodge Main plant about 20 years ago, and yet not a single autoworker
>joined the Party as a result. Shouldn't that be telling us something?
The
>workers appreciated the work we did, but still would not join.
We're not
>answering their basic questions. We avoid discussing the "hard"
stuff
>(like Stalin, religion, the collapse of the USSR, etc) and try
to only
>talk about "immediate" issues. I don't think workers trust us.
I think
>they're saying "Yeah, what you're saying now sounds good, but
look what
>happens when you get in to power". Until we stop side-stepping
these
>issues, workers will continue to distrust us and our ranks will
continue
>to dwindle.
>
>I would much rather see an in-depth discussion of a few basic
issues than
>a superficial short discussion of a large number of "immediate"
issues.
>The latter is what we do far too many times. It'll just be more
of the
>same ol' same ol' that's gotten us to the sorry state we're
in now. And
>yes, we are in bad shape. From what I've heard, we are down
to 1500-2000
>members. That is incredible. And industrial workers aren't exactly
beating
>down our doors to join. We need more ideological discussion,
not less.
>
>As the Party that is supposed to be the most advanced party
of the working
>class (yes, the vanguard), we should have the deepest and highest
level of
>understanding of Marxism-Leninism. I don't think we do. As someone
on this
>list mentioned before, Lenin actually did write other things
besides "Left
>Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". Even those who often
quote that
>book misinterpret what Lenin said. I think Lenin would roll
over in his
>grave (if such a thing were possible:) if he could see how some
comrades
>pick and choose, cafeteria-style, certain quotes from that book
out of
>context to justify opportunist and tailist positions, conveniently
leaving
>out the parts that would cause them discomfort. I don't recall
the last
>time these people quoted Lenin's "Marxism and Reformism" or
"Proletarian
>Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", which are withering attacks
on
>right-opportunism. Perhaps they hit too close to home.
>
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>