SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE REGARDING KOREA, DECEMBER 1-31 issue Peoples Voice, 2010

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE REGARDING KOREA, DECEMBER 1-31 issue Peoples Voice, 2010

http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/

Portion of June 22, 2009 resolution of the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Canada

The Communist Party of Canada warns that Resolution 1874, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on June 12, (2009), will not contribute to advancing the cause of peace and disarmament in the Korean peninsula. By continuing to focus blame on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for tensions in this region, Resolution 1874 increases rather than reduces the danger of military confrontation.

However, it is wrong to claim that Resolution 1874 allows open aggression against the DPRK, a falsehood which is being spread by imperialist forces and the right-wing media as part of a wider campaign to soften up public opinion for military action against North Korea.

The resolution condemns the nuclear test conducted on May 25 by the DPRK, and imposes new sanctions. However, as noted by Zhang Yesui, Chinese permanent representative to the United Nations, the Security Council remains determined "to resolve the DPRK nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."

While Resolution 1874 creates a framework for states to inspect ships and aircraft suspected to be carrying "weapons of mass destruction" or other banned goods, this can be done only with the consent of the country under which the vessel or aircraft is registered. This means that if a vessel belonging to the DPRK refuses inspection, it would be an act of war to seize such a vessel. In the view of the Communist Party of Canada, the gravest danger to peace in the region remains the threat of such arbitrary action by the United States and the South Korean regime.

We also point out that while Resolution 1874 is explicitly phrased to avoid impacting on humanitarian objectives, many previous U.S. actions have violated such Security Council decisions. A serious confrontation could be triggered by bogus U.S. claims that it was compelled to seize vessels as part of the search for WMDs.

Our fears are based not on speculation, but on the wider pattern of U.S. policy in the region. For example, the United States has reneged on its commitments to provide food aid to a World Food Program in the DPRK, and as recently as April, the U.S. sponsored a Security Council resolution against the DPRK for launching a communications satellite.

The threat to peace in the Asia Pacific region arises from US imperialism, which was the first state to develop and use nuclear weapons against civilians, to deploy nuclear weapons outside its own borders. The United States deploys 250,000 military personnel in the Pacific region and regularly takes part in military rehearsals of ground invasions of the DPRK. For over half a century, the United States has refused to engage in serious dialogue with the DPRK, instead pursuing a path of military threats.

We call upon Prime Minister Harper to support an immediate halt to the economic sanctions against the DPRK, and an end to the military interference of the United States in the Korean Peninsula. Canada must instead begin to help normalize relations between the United States and the DPRK, based on the principles of non-interference, cooperation and peace. Canada must support proposals to begin the dismantling of all nuclear arsenals, which would dramatically reduce military tensions in the Korean Peninsula and in all other regions of the world.

SACP second largest party in SA - Central Committee, Malesela Maleka, 28 November 2010

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=213220&sn=Detail&pid=71616

 
Statement issued by the SACP Augmented Central Committee, November 28 2010



The annual augmented Central Committee of the SACP took place in Randburg from the 26 -28 November. The augmented CC is, as the name suggests, an expanded CC that includes representation from the SACP's districts, the Young Communist League's provincial structures, and from institutions that the Party has jointly established - among them the Chris Hani Institute and the Financial Sector Charter Campaign. The annual augmented CC enables the SACP to collectively review the past year and to prepare for the next.

In reviewing 2010 the CC highlighted a number of key positive developments.

The ANC NGC

In the first place, the CC saluted the achievements of the ANC's October National General Council. We particularly welcomed the robust but disciplined manner in which the overwhelming majority of ANC branch delegates affirmed the key themes advanced by ANC President Cde Jacob Zuma in his opening and closing addresses to the NGC.

We believe there is now a clear determination on the part of the ANC and its membership to re-assert the historic values, discipline and strategic perspectives of the ANC and the movement it leads. In affirming these positions, the NGC raised exactly the same issues that the SACP's December 2009 Special National Congress firmly placed on the national agenda.

Collectively we need to address the dangers of a reckless demagogic populism. We need to guard against factional power plays within our movement, based on narrow self-enrichment agendas. And we need to condemn disgraceful displays of conspicuous consumption, not least those that degrade women.

Continued membership growth and Party activism

The CC also welcomed the growing influence, activism and membership of the SACP and Young Communist League. The SACP's membership has grown by a further 20,000 members this year, bringing our total membership to 114,600 - confirming the SACP as the second largest political party in South Africa (after the ANC) in terms of active paid-up membership. Among the highlights of SACP work during 2010 has been the convening of ongoing political education workshops, many of them convened jointly with COSATU affiliates, countrywide and at all levels from the local level up.

The YCL - a vanguard youth formation

The YCL has also emerged ever more firmly as a vanguard youth formation, bringing a militant but disciplined coherence into a sector that is now often characterised by volatile, anarchic tendencies. Among the highlights of the YCL's year was its convening of a Jobs for Youth Summit that drew in participation from over 50 formations, and included youth from the ANCYL, SASCO, COSAS, faith-based formations, and also, notably and encouragingly, from the DA, FF+ and IFP formations.

The crisis of youth unemployment is a matter that needs to be taken up by all South Africans. The CC urged the YCL to take forward its constructive work in this critical youth sector, and wished it well for its National Conference in Mafeking in mid-December.

The SACP - taking joint and collective responsibility for governance

The growing influence of the SACP has also been marked by the increasing appointment of communist cadres (in their own right as ANC cadres, of course) into key positions within government, in the national, provincial and local spheres.

While the SACP does not measure its successes in narrow head-count terms, and while we are committed to the principle of deployments being based, above all, on capacity, commitment and a proven track-record, we are nonetheless heartened by deployment developments over the past year.

The SACP has never conceived of itself as a non-governmental organisation. In the current reality of SA, the SACP, together with its Alliance partners, is committed to building popular and working class power both outside of and WITHIN the state.

In line with this commitment to take joint and collective responsibility for governance, the CC strongly re-affirmed decisions taken by the Party in regard to the deployment of its leadership (including its general secretary) nationally, provincially and locally. The CC also once more reaffirmed the Party's commitment to building leadership collectives, and avoiding all attempts to reduce the question of leadership to individual personalities.

The New Growth Path

A key achievement of 2010 has been government's consolidation and public release of a New Growth Path perspective. Minister for Economic Development, Cde Ebrahim Patel, presented government's NGP document to the CC.  The CC warmly welcomed the major paradigm shift represented by the NGP and government's earlier announcement of the Industrial Policy Action Programme 2 (IPAP2).

While we should certainly debate the detail of both IPAP and the NGP, this time around we must not allow detail to distract us from consolidating and defending the absolutely critical policy and programmatic shift that these policies now begin to represent. In essence this shift is characterised by the following key features:

    * An agreement that we have to radically transform the systemic features of our present productive economy;
    * The key objective is not to achieve an arbitrary GDP growth target (for example, 6%  or 7%), but job creation and greater equality;
    * These outcomes can only be achieved through active state intervention in the economy - through, amongst other things, planning, state-led investment, and the consolidation of a strong, strategically-mandated SOE and DFI sector. This will require the consolidation of a new state-owned bank, and generally a strategically-disciplined, democratic state capable of driving a state-led but people-driven transformation process.
    * The imperative of aligning macro-economic policies with our industrial policy and other productive economy objectives.
    * The imperative of state-led coordination of and between critical sectors of society - e.g., the productive economy, education and skills training, infrastructure development and environmental sustainability.
    * As much as possible, our redistributive interventions, including BBBEE, must also contribute coherently to the progressive transformation of the productive economy - for example, land redistribution can no longer simply be guided by principles of civil rights and historical redress (as important as these might be).
    * The achievement of a new growth path will not be possible without also addressing the way in which SA has historically been located within the global capitalist system as a semi-peripheral primary commodity exporter and regional sub-imperial power - "a (capitalist) gateway to Africa". The achievement of a NGP in SA will depend critically on our ability to play a progressive role in the reconstruction and development of our region. It will also depend on our ability to manoeuvre strategically within the context of major structural shifts within the global reality, not least through deepening anti-imperialist South-South relations.

These, we believe, are the fundamental core features of a new growth path. It is important to recognise that government has deliberately called it a "path" and not a "plan" - it is a strategic direction that we need now to move along, learning and adapting as we proceed.

Nothing is written in stone, other than the imperative of no longer delaying decisive action. Above all, we must not now turn government's NGP into a debating forum. We need, from within and beyond government to begin, together, to actively and decisively take major steps to place our economy onto a new job-creating and more egalitarian path. We cannot wait any longer.

Global capitalism - a crisis that is not going away

2010 has underlined the correctness of what the SACP has been consistently saying - the global capitalist crisis that began in 2008 is deep-seated, structural in character and it will be long-lasting. Everywhere imperialist forces, private banks, and western governments are seeking to displace their crisis onto the backs of workers, the poor, and middle-class strata.

Neo-liberalism's anti-protectionist, free market presumptions lie in tatters as national capital interests scramble to save their own profits and life-styles. The US has cynically declared a currency war on the world with its so-called quantitative easing QE2 initiative - pushing an extra $600billion into circulation - that will further appreciate currencies like the Rand, threatening our own efforts to reverse de-industrialisation.

In the course of 2010, the epicentre of the crisis has also shifted to the Euro-zone. The danger of toppling dominoes impelled by creditor-driven sovereign defaults is very real. The crisis in the Euro-zone is seeing drastic and aggressive moves by centrist governments to roll back popular gains.

In the face of these developments, everywhere there is working class and popular resistance. Day by day, the objective grounds for developing a very broad anti-imperialist front are developing.

Next weekend, the SACP will be convening the 12th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Over 80 parties from all over the world have confirmed their participation. The meeting will focus on the global capitalist crisis and on the imperative of communists taking an active role internationally in turning the multitude of defensive struggles in every part of the world into an offensive struggle to roll back capitalism itself - it is a system that from every perspective, including being able to guarantee environmental sustainability, or decent work for all, or food security, increasingly demonstrates its threat to human civilisation itself.

Sixteen days of activism against violence against women and children

The SACP is actively engaged in the present "Sixteen Days of Activism". We are a society in which patriarchy continues to be a deeply-entrenched challenge. Too often regressive male behaviour hides behind of cloak of "culture". The SACP and the YCL are actively campaigning against reactionary customs like ukuthwala.

The SACP, together with its allies, will be embarking on a campaign for the establishment of more shelters for the victims of gender violence. We encourage communities to continue speaking out against gender violence. While reports indicate that we are beginning to stabilise the number of new HIV infections, there is a need to intensify the HIV Counselling and Testing campaign with active community support.

The CC also received a report from the Minister of Police, cde Nathi Mthethwa. He briefed the CC on government's strategic plans to combat crime and corruption. The CC engaged with the input, welcomed the progress made so far, and noted that it is the working class and poor in our country who are the principal victims of crime and corruption. Combating these evils is not just a matter for government, and the SACP once more commits to helping to strengthen the role of communities and the labour movement in this regard.

The SACP's programme of action for 2011

The CC discussed and approved the SACP 2011 programme of action. The key pillars of this programme include:

Revitalising the broad-based campaign for the transformation of the financial sector. After a period of stale-mate, recently, important progress has been made in the NEDLAC financial sector charter process thanks to a greater dynamism from the side of government. The SACP will be calling for a new Financial Sector Summit in 2011 convened by NEDLAC.

The Party will be resuscitating the broad front Financial Sector Charter Campaign structures as well as convening public forums and seminars. Notwithstanding some progress with, for instance, extending banking services to everyone, gains made are constantly threatened by the profit-maximising interests of the private banks.

There are, for instance, indications that at least some of the banks are planning to walk away from the Mzansi Account which achieved a remarkable 6 million new accounts within the space of a few years. Critical challenges in our struggle to transform the financial sector include the establishment of a state-run bank, cooperative financing, and the challenge of providing loans to working-class families for housing and for higher education fees for their children.

Local government elections - the SACP will be participating integrally in the ANC-led election campaign, including in the development of the manifesto, and consolidation of local election structures. The CC received an input on the forthcoming campaign from ANC NWC member, cde Jessie Duarte.

Deepening our work with the progressive trade union movement - including taking up the challenges of a consolidating an effective social wage for the working class especially in relation to housing, public transport, and the National Health Insurance, and linking these to COSATU's living wage campaign. The SACP will also be expanding its joint political schools with COSATU affiliates.

In the course of 2011, the SACP will continue to engage actively with its internationalist work, including ongoing solidarity efforts with Swaziland, Cuba, Western Sahara and Palestine. We will also convene on International Women's Day (8 March) a continent-wide African Women's Conference.

The CP of China and its strategic dialogues with PASOK and the Socialist International, From: Communist Party of Greece, Monday, 22 November 2010

http://inter.kke.gr


Comment of the Newspaper «Rizospastis”-Organ of the CC of the KKE (19/12/2010)

It is well-known that the KKE has come to the conclusion that capitalist relations are developing in China today, with the peculiarity that this is happening under the political leadership of the governing party which bears the title “communist”.

The consequences of this development are well-known: the elevation of China to the top of the countries with the fastest rates of capitalist development and the largest number of billionaires, the abolition of important workers’ gains, such as free health care and education, which the workers have to now pay for, and the existence of millions of unemployed and low-paid workers.

It was not by accident, then, that Liu Jieyi, Deputy Director of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, in his meeting (16/11) with G. Papandreou, Greek Prime minister and President of PASOK and the Socialist International stated that ” The relationship between PASOK and the Communist Party of China is exceptional and we have every intention of working more closely together, in order to promote our inter-party relations and through inter-party dialogue to reinforce the exceptional strategic cooperation between our two countries, especially now as we face many challenges”. Liu Jieyi did not forget to congratulate G. Papandreou on the “excellent election results”. It could not be otherwise, as the political representatives of the monopolies (such as COSCO), regardless of their packaging, (“socialist” in Greece or “communist” in China), understand their common class interests.

The anti-people choices of the PASOK government are saluted and supported by Chinese officials, as long as they are combined with the opening of the road for the Chinese monopolies.

But as we learned from Liu Jieyi, the “love” of the CPC is not only reserved for “socialist” PASOK but for the whole Socialist International. As he himself said: “We are of the opinion that the continuation of coordination and the exchange of views are important, as is the strategic dialogue between the Socialist International and the Communist Party of China. We have every intention of continuing this dialogue further, because as we discovered in the meetings over the last two days, there are many points of agreement between the Socialist International and the political orientation of the Communist Party of China.”

We should remember that this “International” supported the wars of the USA and NATO, and is a political pillar of support for the exploitative capitalist system in Europe and the entire world.

After all this, one may well wonder that maybe the CP China is getting ready to abandon its last “fig-leaf”-its title?

VI Congress of the Cuban Communist Party: Towards a Future of Socialism, By Hilda Pupo S. / hildita@ahora.cu / Monday, 15 November 2010

http://www.ahora.cu/english/sections/opinion/3163-vi-congress-of-the-cuban-communist-party-towards-a-future-of-socialism.html


The announcement of the holding of the Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party in April, brings an implicit truth: we approach the development of a defining event for the future of Cuba and its Revolution.

There is talk of strengthening brotherhood and changes to the current circumstances, but it is good to clarify, not to raise hopes in those who wish us ill, that those changes are only within the current model of socialism in the country.
Following the first modifications in recent years, the hostile press started asking about their slow pace and their alleged superficiality. Raul said that he had been elected president to defend socialism, not to destroy it.

It is certain that only under a political system like ours, we will be able to face the difficulties and plan our course without losing the essence of Cuba's humanitarian work; therefore the economy, the central theme of the event, will be discussed further in the search for better use of forces or more planning, but not the imperative of the market where the naked capitalist trend of supply and demand prevails.

It will analyze the defense of equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, other than to egalitarianism in the mechanisms of distribution and redistribution of income, because we cannot keep thinking about the general merits for the grace of wanting to be fairer. The work must be paid for quantity and quality and this will set the difference.

If the draft Guidelines for the economic and social policy of the country will be available to the entire population, which can emit criteria with a view to consideration and approval by Congress, it is due to the permanent respect for democracy. "Revolutionaries, the direction and the majority of the people are our most important strategic weapon, which has allowed us to get here and continue the future development of socialism," said Raul.

The discussion of his speech at the celebration of July 26th in Camagüey, is the best background for the deliberations that will begin now, and which call for reflection children of knowledge, not romantic and unworkable criteria.

With the meeting of the Communist Vanguard the economic model, now immersed in the adjustments to the reorganization of work that aims to deflate the templates in the search for higher yields, will be updated. Enhancing self-employment is part of these new mechanisms.

The greatest wealth in this definition of future is the people's participation.

On the resignation of Gordon Campbell Statement by the Communist Party of British Columbia, Young Communist League - BC Blog,

The three terms of the Campbell Liberals have been characterized by implementing the lowest taxes for the wealthy and corporations in North America at the expense of the standard of living, wages and social programs of BC residents. His forced resignation is a compliment to a tenacious and awakened electorate who has had enough.


 http://yclbc-lowermainland.blogspot.com/2010/11/statement-by-communist-party-of-british.html

 In his devotion to corporate welfare Gordon Campbell kept the minimum wage at the lowest level in Canada while presiding over an economy where the top ten CEO’s collectively in 2009 earned $70 million dollars. Upon the imbalanced scales of extreme wealth and extreme poverty Gordon Campbell’s weight was always on the side of extreme wealth.

For seven years British Columbia has had the worst child poverty in Canada. After nine years of tuition fee increases BC takes in more from tuition fees than it does from corporate taxation. The massive privatization of Healthcare services, with parallel cutbacks in quality and accessibility, has channeled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into corporate bank accounts while rolling back healthcare wages 15% and then freezing them at that level.

The Campbell Liberals repeatedly broke election promises that had value to the public and steadfastly adhered to every policy that gave away public resources to private business. They have brought almost every school board in BC into funding crisis that has put 200 schools on the closure list so far. They broke their promise not to privatize BC Rail and in the corrupted bidding process implicated cabinet ministers in a scandal currently hidden behind two scapegoats and a plea bargain that hides the extent and involvement of elected officials in betrayal and corruption.

The Campbell Liberals have gutted the Environmental Assessment Act and created Cabinet powers that overrule municipal by-laws and autonomy to the point that municipalities can only govern if they don’t interfere with corporate interests. They cut the transfer of gambling profits to Charities and the Arts from 33% to 10%. They made massive funding cuts to Women’s Shelters, closed down homeless hostels and cut and slashed their way through almost every social or special needs program in the province.

For Gordon Campbell to whine about a vindictive public and the strain on his family after ruining so many lives is typical of the arrogance and contempt he and his government have exercised. The NDP MLA’s and Party Leader who stroke him on his way out with platitudes about “years of public service” should tell the truth and expose the years of “corporate service” if they don’t want to appear as members of the same club.

Gordon Campbell was not brought down by the parliamentary opposition; he was not brought down by a caucus revolt. He was brought down by massive public rejection of the Liberal Government’s record of lies broken promises and deceit that made it impossible for him to continue. The HST debacle and the transfer of $1.6 billion from the public to the private purse has become the catalyst, the glue of all the diverse forces screaming betrayal. The historic pending referendum is evidence of the public rage.

Gordon Campbell is going, he should be gone and his entire caucus that supported him doggedly should leave with him.

Had Enough? Written by Zoltan Zigedy, in Marxism-Leninism Today, October 6, 2010

Frustration with the Obama Administration has reached a new level with only 45% of US citizens polled approving of the job that the Administration is doing and 39% voicing approval of the Administration's policies on the economy (see Wall Street Journal/NBC telephone polls, 9-7-10). The overall mood is pessimistic: 65% of those polled believe that the US is in a period of decline; 59% of the polled population thinks that the country will be the same or worse in five years.

http://mltoday.com/en/subject-areas/commentary/had-enough-957-2.html

Only 30% of poll participants believe that the country is headed in the right direction. This is a negative assessment not seen since the tail end of the Bush Administration.

In a normal election cycle – the give-and-take of the two Parties – this would signal enthusiasm for the party out of power: the Republican Party. However, among Republicans, only 30% have a positive view of their own party, the lowest number recorded since before 1990.

These numbers express a smoldering anger about where we have arrived since the 2008 election and where we are heading.

The only major new force on the political scene reflecting this angry mood is the Tea Party phenomenon — a faux populist movement backed by extreme-right money and fueled by the ultra-right media.

Facing an interim election in November, all of the healthy forces in US political life are scrambling to establish a posture towards these elections. Bitterness, backbiting, and confusion abound. The Internet is abuzz with the anger of scorned liberals who feel betrayed by two years of at best, ineffectual, at worst, malign Administration leadership.

As the Administration positions itself for the coming months, it reflects this mood by jettisoning three of its leading economic lights: Peter Orszag, Christina Romer and Lawrence Summers. The exit of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, has passed the rumor level and is now a fact, as is likely the departure of many other prominent members of the Administration. Despite their fealty to the corporate financial sector, Obama has suggested that he is seeking economic advisors that are more comfortable communicating with the corporate world.

Some in liberal circles cling to lingering hopes that the "real" Obama will soon be revealed. With all the enthusiasm of a revival meeting, they are awaiting a political rapture – a fulfillment of the "change" and "hope" themes of the election campaign. But my angry local letter carrier sees it differently. She says that people mistook "hope" for "dope," a succinct declaration of her own frustrations.

Indeed, all signs point to a reshuffling of the Administration in an even more conciliatory-to-the-right, pro-business direction. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "Part of the president's task will be to 'reset' relations with the business community, not only to ease working in a divided Washington but also to smooth his path to re-election" (9-23-10). There is little room in this scenario for the revelation of a progressive, pro-working-class agenda. The WSJ cites senior White House officials as saying, "the president could concentrate on finding common ground on deficit reduction, education and immigration while guarding his achievements, from health care to student lending to financial regulation."

The Political Crisis
All polls agree that approval ratings for the President have sunk substantially since his inauguration. And approval ratings for Congress hover at an embarrassing low level, a level that has been maintained since a time deep into the Bush Administration. Polls also show that both Parties are generally unpopular. Whether one bought the Obama message or not, it should have been apparent that his Administration was meant to change the national mood of dissatisfaction and the international scorn brought on by the previous Administration. They have failed in that task. And the political crisis continues.

The distance between the legislative actions of elected officials and the needs and desires of the electorate has never been greater. And the Obama Administration suffers inordinately from this distance because they promised so much in the presidential campaign. This distance was shown most recently with the issue of allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Initially, Obama and the Democratic leadership proposed maintaining the cuts for all but the very wealthy, a move that would have brought a measure of fairness to tax policy and generated $700 billion over 10 years in extra Federal revenue.

The Republicans mounted a hysterical and demagogic campaign based on the inflammatory charge of tax increases. When opinion polls showed that the tax increases for the rich were popular (mid-September, CBS/New York Times - 53-38%), especially in key "battleground" states, the Republicans backed down. But, immediately, 31 Democratic Representatives voiced their public opposition to taxing the rich. Consequently any decision on the Bush tax cuts will be deferred until after the November elections. Every signal points to Congress maintaining the Bush tax policies for another two years.

Why is there such distance between popular issues and legislative action?

Many pundits employ vague, cloudy concepts like "gridlock" or blame a new-found intransigence or incivility. But the truth is simpler, but deeper: Elected officials are, for the most part, owned by monopoly capital. To a very great extent, the course of political success is greased with money and the opportunity to forge a successful and long political career is dependent upon corporate friendliness. Of course this is not new, but it has reached a new level of prevalence, demonstrating strikingly that the state – its structures and personnel – is dominated by and serves the interests of monopoly capital; that is, our reigning socio-economic system is state-monopoly capital.

Thus, there is no exit, without some radical surgery, from the political crisis that grips the US.

Moreover, the results of the November elections – regardless of the outcome - will have no dramatic impact on our profound political crisis. This does not mean, however, that there is nothing to be gained in the election. There are independent candidates – Greens, for example – who could open cracks in the corrupted two-party system. There are also some independent-minded Democrats who could, though only with a strong prod from progressive constituents, mount a meaningful challenge to the ossified, corporate-coddling Party leadership. And there would be advantages, advantages with a shrinking relevance, to maintaining a balance of forces favoring the Democrats. However, the ever-growing distance between the Democrats and the needs of the populace dampens any enthusiasm for fighting for this advantage.

Therefore, there is a deep and deadly contradiction embedded in the two-party system, a contradiction that will only be overcome with the emergence of independent movements unwaveringly committed to principled, progressive politics.

Going forward, we can expect the Obama Administration to focus on the 2012 Presidential election. The Obama team will maneuver rightward, leaving many of the now-distant campaign promises like the Employee Free Choice Act or immigration reform in its wake. The hints referenced above signal an aloof presidency, above the fray, though ever sensitive to the needs of the corporations and their generous campaign contributions. Like Bill Clinton, Obama will seek a presidential posture dissociated from any ideological position, but portraying civility, bi-partisanship, likeability and managerial competence – a posture appealing to the non-ideological center thought to be crucial for re-election.

Needed: A Break from the Past
Undoubtedly, these observations may not come as news for many, especially many of the 65% of those polled who think the US is in decline. The widespread mood is anger and disappointment. But little will come from moods if no useful conclusions are drawn, if patterns remain unseen, if events are misunderstood. Far too many see the political crisis in terms of flawed personalities, individual values or ideological caricatures.

The long-term trend of wealth and income inequality; the ever-growing concentration of power and influence in the hands or corporations, especially the financial sector; the growth of political corruption and the role of money and media in electoral politics; the ascension of the callous, anti-social culture of individualism assailing "entitlements" or common benefits; the repeated aggressive military missions to deny any barriers to international capital — all these phenomena interact and decisively cause the deepening political crisis. These are not moments of bad judgment, occasionally flawed policies, or aberrations. They are features of the logic of capitalism, a capitalism that brought on an equally profound and closely related economic crisis.

Not everyone yet makes these connections, but they ignore them at great peril. While there is a widespread sense that we are at a decisive moment, there is an unfounded faith that the old solutions will suffice. Some pine for an imaginary time of social harmony and cultural unity while conveniently ignoring those left out of their idyllic fantasy – a world without immigrants, embracing segregation and racism, and willfully ignorant of the crude exploitation of labor. Others embrace liberal values associated with an imaginary kinder, gentler capitalism, but turn away from the reality that the profit-hungry modern corporation stands firmly and powerfully against this dream.

Politics will become real only when we face the truth that the modern monopoly capitalist corporation stands as the adversary to all but the very rich. That understanding will lead to the further understanding that only a broad anti-monopoly strategy will solve the crises of our economy and our politics.

It's a curious, but telling, fact that political discourse has shifted from the extreme-right-imposed cultural battlefield of abortion, gays, and guns dominating the last decade to the issues of the economy and the role of the state. The Right has entered this new battlefield under the banner of fiscal austerity and hostility to government. Led by tea-bagger foot soldiers, they rail against government spending, regulation, and social programs. If they succeed in selling this line to voters, they will bring pain and devastation not only to working people, but also to the whole economy and social fabric.

Sadly, the Democratic Party leadership has shown little or no interest in engaging the right on this battlefield. They concede that government spending should be restrained, regulation should be minimal and non-antagonistic to business interests, and social programs must be trimmed. It is left for Democratic-friendly labor leaders and party loyalists to defend this blatant coincidence of political outlook. They must excuse this conjunction of Democratic views with Republican ideology as a tactical retreat or they must argue that Democrats will inflict the pain of austerity more compassionately. Neither excuse is credible with angry, frustrated voters who continue to thirst for effective change.

This is the great tragedy of the November elections. Indeed, there is much at stake, but the Democrats refuse to fight a credible battle, a battle that would require at least a modest rebuff to their corporate masters. As things stand, the election will turn on how much fear of a return to Republican leadership can be generated rather than what the Democrats would accomplish with a victory.

Last week's giant rally in Washington, DC only underlines these contradictions. Committed people came in droves to express both an outrage at where we are heading and a determination to join others in changing course. Hopes were high that leaders would energize the causes that inspire people to action, such as fair labor legislation, employment opportunities, peace, immigration reform, racial equality, help for the poor and disadvantaged, and mortgage and other debt relief. While speakers readily chronicled the evils produced by a system of inequality and injustice, they were hesitant to speak its name: capitalism. Instead, most urged those who came on buses, trains, planes, and cars to work for the election of Democrats in November.

This constant cycle of placing all the hopes for a better future in the hands of corporate-owned Democrats must be broken. This is not a call for those fearful of a Republican victory in November to sit on the sidelines or boycott the elections, but, rather, for them to further commit to establishing independent voices, voices that will demand that all elected officials choose between corporate fealty and the causes of the people.

For too long, many progressive and left leaders have posed supporting the Democratic Party against any initiative that might upset or provoke Democratic leaders. They narrowly and rigidly limit political action to the electoral campaign and reject any challenge to Democratic Party leadership as heretical and divisive. Such an approach has led us into the current political crisis and offers no way out. This false tactical finesse smothered the anti-war movement and tolerated the evisceration of health care reform, the expansion of imperialist aggression, the coddling of the financial sector, and the criminal neglect of the unemployed, the underemployed and the poor. It is time to reject it and move on.

There is no easy escape from our political crisis. But it begins by building movements outside of and often apart from the ineffective Democratic Party.

Which Way the CPUSA ?: A Response to C.J. Atkins “Living in an Era of Change” by: Emile Schepers, Political Affairs, November 8 2010

Blogger's Note:
SOURCE: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/response-to-c-j-atkins-living-in-an-era-of-change/
Emile Schepers writes in RESPONSE TO C.J. Atkin's article calling for dropping the Name of The Party:http://www.politicalaffairs.net/living-in-an-era-of-change/ and John Case's Reply to Atkins which goes beyond dropping the party-name to changing policy as well: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/reply-to-living-in-an-era-of-change-by-c-j-atkins/

This response is to C.J. Atkins' article and also by articles by John Case and commentaries related to these articles.

Although I take issue with some of the formulations, I am glad that this is being brought into the open for discussion. Some might say we should not be doing this, because no proposal to change the Party's name was brought to our May convention as a resolution, let alone passed, so we should wait to raise the issue for pre convention discussion before our next convention, three and a half years from now.

However, I think this policy should be changed. The world changes too fast for us to freeze all our Party-wide discussion for four years, defrost it for 6 months before our convention, and then freeze it again. So I would be very much in favor of having an ongoing discussion in our media and collectives on these questions of ideology, strategy and tactics. Only everybody should be invited to participate on an equal basis.

To the matter at hand:

Although I agree that, as Shakespeare said “a rose by another name would smell as sweet”, I do not think the logic of changing the “Communist” and “Party” names is well thought out in these contributions. 

We have to understand that while some may react negatively to the name, others react positively. This is the case with the hundreds of people who have been applying for party membership over the internet recently. These are mostly people who specifically went looking for the phrase “Communist Party” on the internet, found our websites, liked what they read and sent in an e-mailed application. We have received such a number of such applications that we have to work overtime to catch up with them all.  If we cut ourselves off from our fighting history by inventing some sort of bland new name for ourselves, such people would never even know where to look for us. Among more non-party people than you would imagine, our Party has a deep reservoir of prestige. I have even found this with some people in the Democratic Party. People who have any political education at all understand who we are on the basis of our history. For people who do not have a political education on that subject, it is our responsibility to provide it, which we will not achieve by hiding our light under a bushel.

And I think that people who are not bothered by the “communist” and “party” labels are better recruits for us qualitatively, than people who are – that is, unless we think it is a good plan to recruit anti-communists into the Communist Party (but they wouldn't join anyway).

I also have a fundamental problem with lowering our flag or donning some sort of camouflage as a response to the poison of anti-communism, instead of fighting it. Though the methods of people like Stalin and Mao were deplorable, and huge mistakes were made in other socialist countries also, to simply denounce the entire communist experience in the USSR and beyond to me is repugnant. What about Fidel, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Lenin and Mariátegui? Are we going to repudiate such figures too, because they are foreign, old, or (horrors) dead?

I think that our duty is to educate the US people about the real history of the communist movement worldwide and in our country. We should not cover up the crimes of Stalin or any of the other mistakes that were made, but neither should we make ideological concessions to our enemies. (Atkins mentions Ceausescu of Rumania as a bad figure from the communist past; do we not remember that Ceausescu was a pampered U.S. ally within the Eastern European bloc?)

I am sure the comrades who are writing in this vein do not intend to inject “red white and blue” USA nationalism into our Party, by implying that we have nothing to learn from “old” or “foreign” figures in the communist movement. But it is wrong anyway, and foments a nationalistic attitude. The United States has specific historically determined characteristics, around which we have to build our strategy and tactics (e.g., vis a vis the Democrats), but we are not better than other peoples and other communist parties, or different to the point that we have nothing to learn from them.  Study of the works of Gramsci, Che Guevara and Mariátegui would be very salutary for our members and friends – not to mention Marx and Engels themselves, who both were foreigners who became old and are now dead.

Thank goodness nobody takes the attitude that we can't learn from those two old, dead Europeans!

Yes, it's true that from time to time communist parties in other countries have used names other than “communist”. Sometimes that has worked out well for them, as for the AKEL of Cyprus. On other occasions, the results have not been as good, probably not because of the name change per se but because of other tendencies linked to the name change.

During the 1940s, this was the trend in some places. In the United States, we had the episode when Earl Browder was our General Secretary. The change of the name to “Communist Political Association” (note that “Communist” stayed in there, but “Party” was jettisoned) was associated with rightward, liquidationist trends than nearly put an end to us.  Riding herd on the Latin American parties, which had been put under our Party's tutelage by the COMINTERN, in some cases involved Browder and his colleagues pressuring for name changes, in other for dissolution of the existing communist parties. In the case of Cuba the name was changed to People's Socialist Party; in that of Mexico there was an effort to dissolve the Communist Party, which was resisted. This was all based on the idea that the Democratic Party would move the United States, and thus the world, in the direction of socialism. But the both major US political parties moved sharply to the right after World War II, and the Latin American parties who had followed our lead, or at any rate the COMINTERN's, in these things had to reorganize themselves completely to deal with new imperialist assaults in the region. The upshot for us was the ouster of Browder, the reconstruction of the Communist Party USA, and then repression during the McCarthy period.

And if anyone imagines that McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities would not have had success in going after us if we had been working under another name, they are quite wrong. Disguising our identity would not have worked, and would only have reinforced the idea that we were trying to hide behind false fronts. In fact, it probably would have been better if we had been working more openly under our own name; the failure to do that played into the anti-communists efforts to portray us as a secret conspiracy. Nor would changing our name have stopped the losses that we incurred after the Khrushchev revelations about Stalin, or the John Gates episode.

Again after the fall of the USSR and the Eastern European socialist bloc, some communist parties underwent a similar process which eventually destroyed them. And I have not seen the country in which the presence of a communist party would be bad, or which would be better off without one.

Based on 23 years of Party experience, I have a different idea as to why we do not grow quickly enough to make up for losses caused by the decease of our old, cherished comrades who established such a glorious record in past decades.

In the clubs I have been in, at one point as a club chair, I have never seen a systematic approach to strategizing which mass movements and organizations we should link up to. It has very often been left up to individual comrades, with some choosing not to get involved in mass struggles at all. There has been a willingness to do electoral work for the Democrats at election time, but that is only every couple of years. Things are said about this at the national and district level, but I fear it is not taken up by some clubs in any kind of organized way.

Worse, I have seen a lack of a systematic approach to recruitment. There is a struggle to get comrades to write down and turn in names and contact information on prospects, and in assigning people to go and talk to such people, inviting them to open club meetings. People who want to join the Party are supposed to find us somehow, while we try to disguise ourselves to make it harder! Speaking of sectarianism, this is a good example of how it harms us.

And I am not sure everybody is sold on the merits of using the Internet. I am on many list serves (Cuba solidarity, international affairs, civil liberties, immigrants' rights and peace) in which very important discussions take place, potentially giving a forum for our Party to put forth its views and announce its activities, not to mention urging people to read our online press. But very few of our comrades take advantage of this forum, as far as I can see. This is in spite of all the urging by our national leadership to get with the new developments in electronic communications. There is no reason why every single article in our press can't be posted on one mass movement list serve or other.

If we want the party to grow and increase its influence, we should do more check up on these things, and not cut ourselves off from our historic legacy and the reservoir of respect and prestige it has given us. 

The potential for growth is huge. [blogger's emphasis]