From Workers' Herald
September 1996

The CPUSA: A Revisionist Party of Reformism,
Not a Marxist-Leninist Party of Revolution

By Jim Rosenbaum

In the previous issue of Workers' Herald, we exposed the revisionist views of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) and Workers World Party on the question of the state.⁽¹⁾ In this issue we continue our exposure of the CPUSA as a party of reformism, not revolution.

The role of the proletarian party is of decisive importance for the socialist revolution. Such a party must be "a revolutionary party, one bold enough to lead the proletarians in the struggle for power, sufficiently experienced to find its bearings amidst the complex conditions of a revolutionary situation, and sufficiently flexible to steer clear of all submerged rocks in the path to its goal. Without such a party it is useless even to think of overthrowing imperialism, of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat," as Stalin said.⁽²⁾

For the workers to see themselves as a class, and most importantly to act as a class, with interests separate from and opposed to those of the bourgeoisie, they need the leadership of their own party. This party must consist of the most class-conscious, dedicated fighters of the proletariat, the advanced detachment of the working class. This vanguard party must develop the class consciousness of the working class, while leading it in the day-to-day struggles to improve its conditions, and linking these struggle to the fight for power. If the workers do not have the leadership of such a Marxist-Leninist party, they will inevitably be lead by alien parties, either parties of the open bourgeois enemy, or vacillating, opportunist petty-bourgeois parties that will constantly betray them to this enemy.

The revisionist parties are opportunist petty-bourgeois parties of that type. Their goal is not to lead the proletariat in its seizure of power and the establishment of its dictatorship over the capitalists as the transition to classless society, communism. Rather they seek to "improve" capitalism through a series of reforms, camouflaged by some general talk of socialism in the far distant future, thrown in to deceive the more class conscious workers. For such a purpose, of course, they have no need for an advanced, organized vanguard detachment of the proletariat, the true Marxist-Leninist party.

The CP Subordinates the Workers to the Democratic Party

The so-called Communist Party of the U.S.A. (CPUSA) has long been a totally anti-revolutionary organization. It gave up the goal of socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat decades ago. Rather than organizing the workers into a class-for-themselves, it has directed workers who have sympathy for socialism to tail behind the bourgeoisie. Its talk of reviving Marxism-Leninism is a complete sham, to try to give itself some credibility among the advanced workers.

Ever since the 1940s the CPUSA has centered its strategy on forming an "anti-monopoly coalition." This means in practice to build a united front of workers, petty bourgeois and capitalists nominally for the purpose of winning a few reforms. In reality it is an alliance led by the capitalists to block reforms and to undermine revolution. Practice shows that the anti-monopoly alliance leaves the workers ideologically under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, and organizationally under the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is one of the twin parties of monopoly capitalism in the U.S. It is the party of the Kennedys, Roosevelts and other major monopolists who control it. The petty-bourgeois and labor aristocrats who work within it serve to deceive the workers by disguising this fact but they in no way change its class nature. Lenin points out that parties always serve a particular class. The Democratic Party, of course, tries to portray itself as a "people's party" that represents "all classes." The CPUSA leadership aids it in this deception.

Lenin constantly pointed out the need for the working class to form its own political party, separate from and opposed to the parties of the capitalists. In the limited electoral arena in tsarist Russia, he opposed any electoral blocs with the capitalist parties, especially the Cadets (Constitutional-Democrats).⁽³⁾ He criticized the Mensheviks, the opportunist "socialists" of that time, for proposing to support the Cadets, showing that this would weaken the class consciousness and organization of the workers. He said, in Party Discipline and the Fight against the Pro-Cadet Social Democrats: "The sanction of blocs with the Cadets is the finishing touch that definitely marks the Mensheviks as the opportunist wing of the workers' party. We are waging a ruthless ideological struggle against the formation of blocs with the Cadets, and this struggle must be developed to the widest possible extent. This will do more than anything to educate and unite the masses of the revolutionary proletariat, whom our independent (really, and not merely in name, i.e., without blocs with the Cadets) election campaign will provide with fresh material for the development of their class-consciousness."⁽⁴⁾ Lenin also pointed out that, in the United States, there was no real difference between the two main capitalist parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. (See box below.) This is certainly just as true today, over 80 years later.

But the CPUSA has renounced all these lessons of Leninism. For decades it has consistently supported and allied itself to the Democratic Party as the "lesser of two evils." In the 1992 presidential election their main slogan was "Defeat Bush/ Perot." In 1988 and 1992, they even refused to run their own candidate for President in order not to divert votes from the Democratic Party. This went along with years of mass agitation, particularly on the economic front, in which they blamed "Reagan/Bush reaction" for the deepening misery of the working class and oppressed nationalities. They shielded the anti-worker, anti-people polices of the Democratic party which endorsed the actions of Reagan Bush. The CPUSA did not expose this reactionary offensive as an inevitable outcome of the crisis of capitalism. In the New York City mayoral campaign in both 1989 and 1993 they called on the "people" to oppose Rudolph Giuliani and support the liberal Democratic Party candidate, David Dinkins.

The fact that the CPUSA sometimes does not come out embracing every stand of Clinton or Dinkins is just a reflection of their recognition of the workers' disgust with both capitalist parties. In so doing, the CPUSA is in no way changing its orientation of alliance with the Democratic Party.

This support for the Democratic Party is of invaluable service to the capitalist class. There are many workers who understand that both the Democrats and Republicans represent their class enemy, and would not fall for the argument of an ordinary liberal that the "Democrats are the friends of the people." But when a party that calls itself "Communist" tells them that they must unite with the Democrats "against Reagan/Bush reaction" or other such demagogy, this has some effect. It confuses those workers who want to fight to overthrow capitalism but are not clear on the absolute need for an independent Marxist-Leninist party , one that is totally separated from and opposed to the liberal Democrats, and consequently capable of organizing the proletariat's fight for state power. The CPUSA's strategy thus serves to keep such workers away from the idea of revolution and bring them back to tailing behind the bourgeoisie.

Sometimes, the CP talks of "independent" or "third party" electoral activity, and occasionally it even runs candidates under its own party label. But this is only just talk, form but no content, a part of the CP's hype of a "new militancy," for the CP has bound itself hand and foot to the Democratic Party. It is another tactic to fool the more militant workers and keep them away from the need for revolution. Even when revisionist parties, such as the CP, appear on the scene under their own banners and run their own candidates in elections, they function as what Lenin called "liberal-labor parties," and are never based on a revolutionary program. Such activity does not represent the independent activity of the proletariat, because the CP is not a party independent of the bourgeoisie. It does not follow a policy of leading the working class in the fight against the bourgeoisie or prepare the workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Lenin and the Bolshevik Party provided clear examples in practice of using elections in a revolutionary way, in the brief periods of limited bourgeois democracy in Russia before 1917. They ran candidates for the Duma (the nominal parliament under the tsar), using the campaign to put forward their revolutionary program among the workers. Because of their strong support in the working class, they were able to win several seats. Their representatives used the Duma to put forward the program for the democratic revolution, calling for the overthrow of tsarism and the autocracy, and agitating for the subsequent socialist revolution. They made use of this parliament as a legal forum to organize support of workers' strikes and other actions. They criticized the role of the opportunists, the Mensheviks and other similar parties, in the Duma. Their role helped win over the masses of the workers to the side of the Bolsheviks.⁽⁵⁾ Later from April to October of 1917, when the workers' soviets were formed, the Bolsheviks ran candidates who espoused and explained the need for the socialist revolution, for the dictatorship of the workers, as the only way out of the crisis of imperialism.

"Pushing the Democratic Party to the Left"

The CPUSA's support of the Democratic Party most frequently comes in the form of calling on the masses to "push the Democratic Party to the left." In reality, this means calling on the Democratic Party to adopt more reforms, for it cannot change its class nature as a party of the monopoly capitalists. And such a call does not even help to bring about reforms, which the capitalists are sometimes forced to grant in response to increased, not toned down, revolutionary agitation.

Since Clinton has been in office, it has become clear to most working people that his pre-election promises of improved conditions of life were nothing but the ordinary lies of a capitalist politician seeking their votes. Therefore, the CPUSA has since become very "critical" of Clinton, ignoring the fact that they were among his most vocal supporters before the elections. But this "criticism" is purely within the framework of so-called "pressure politics" within the capitalist party system.

Thus, Gus Hall, in his speech at the CP's September 1993 National Conference, in the section titled "The Clinton Administration," said: "There is now a full-fledged coalition of the ultra-right, the right-wing Democrats and reactionary Republicans. Together with corporate America they are doing an effective job on the Clinton Administration, which responds by moving steadily to the right....

"If there ever was a question, there is none now: without mass pressure, mass actions and unity in struggle, Clinton will not adopt liberal or progressive positions or policies."⁽⁶⁾

What is missing here is even the feeblest attempt at exposing the Democratic Party as one of the twin parties of capitalist reaction. There is no attempt to use the betrayal that many workers justly feel at Clinton's broken promises to bring them to even an elementary understanding of the need for socialism, of the fact that this betrayal was an inevitable consequence of Clinton's role as a capitalist politician. All Hall will do is try to lead the workers back into begging these politicians into taking so-called "better positions." -- i.e. reforms and nothing more.

This outlook also exposes the demagogy of Hall's occasional mention of the Democratic Party as a party of monopoly capitalism. For if he really meant this, he would not urge workers to support it, or to "push it to the left," for this is an opportunist stand. A revolutionary socialist does not seek to "push the enemy to the "left," our whole policy is to prepare the masses to overthrow the enemy and break his resistance. Even with the semi-proletarian allies, the policy of a real communist party seeks not to "push them to the left" but to paralyze their vacillation with powerful independent revolutionary actions, with full uncurtailed socialist agitation and propaganda for the destruction of the power of the capitalist exploiters.

As another example, take the conclusion of Gus Hall's remarks to a meeting of the National Board of the CPUSA, printed and highlighted in the People's Weekly World of June 12, 1993. "The Clintonites will continue responding to the pressures and demands of the ruling class, corporate America, the Perot forces and the rest of the organized right wing until the working class, the trade union movement and its allies begin pushing from the opposite direction."

Thus the CPUSA uses its role in the mass movements to confine them to putting imaginary pressure on the Democratic Party. This is the constant thrust of the CPUSA's agitation. This decades' long policy of alliance with the Democratic Party has had a devastating effect on the independent outlook of the proletariat. It has led many of the workers who are relatively more class conscious to look towards supporting the more liberal capitalists instead of helping to develop the working class as a class for itself. It sacrifices the fundamental interests of the proletariat in the struggle for its emancipation. That is why the CPUSA is a party that reflects the interest of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement. It is a non-revolutionary party of reformism, an auxiliary of the Democratic Party, and thus an anti-proletarian party.

CP's Talk of "Bill of Rights Socialism"

We have seen that the CPUSA functions to keep the working class within the bounds of the capitalist system, in particular tying it to the Democratic Party both in its electoral campaigns and in its general work. When they speak at all of the need for "socialism" in the U.S., they qualify it with liberal phrases such as "Bill of Rights socialism," which used to be one of Gus Hall's favorite terms. This term reflects the CP's complete capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

For example, in his speech to the CPUSA's 25th National Convention in December 1991, Gus Hall said: "Today we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a tremendous democratic achievement of our people, an enduring victory that will be enshrined in the foundations of a socialist USA."⁽⁷⁾

The capitalists are constantly trying to deceive the workers into believing that the false, hypocritical, bourgeois democracy, such as exists in the U.S., is a "democracy for all," a "pure" democracy. But this is a complete fraud. So-called democratic rights, such as "freedom of the press," are completely restricted by the fact that the capitalists own the overwhelming majority of the means of communication. The "right to strike" is constantly restricted by such measures as court injunctions against mass picketing and Congressionally mandated "cooling off periods." The right to demonstrate is frequently limited by the police, especially during revolutionary upsurges. This was made clear during the rebellion after the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King in the spring of 1992, and after the police murders of José Garcia and Dagoberto Pichardo in Washington Heights, New York, in the summer of 1992. Lenin pointed out: "There is not a single state, however democratic, which does not contain loopholes or limiting clauses in its Constitution guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the legal possibility of despatching troops against the workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a 'disturbance of the peace,' i.e., in case the exploited class 'disturbs' its position of slavery and tries to behave in a non-slavish manner."⁽⁸⁾

To speak of "Bill of Rights socialism" is to claim that the Bill of Rights (though historically progressive in relation to feudal absolutism) is a guarantee of "democracy for all," or that it can even be used to bring about socialism, without a revolution. This is a complete liberal deception about the class nature of the state. It confuses the workers into believing that they can "take power" by parliamentary means, through an electoral majority, instead of by revolutionary means, through smashing the capitalist state apparatus.

Moreover, "Bill of Rights socialism" obscures the nature of the proletarian state that must be built after the seizure of power. For this state will also not be a "democracy for all," but a democracy for the majority of society, the working class, and a dictatorship over the minority, the capitalists. This state will be based on workers' councils, which will administer centralized, socialist production, and will increasingly draw the mass of the workers into state administration, while excluding the former exploiters. Moreover, it will also be an organ of suppression, as the old state was. But it will be based on a workers' militia and army that will suppress the overthrown capitalists to prevent them from returning to power as well as repel any attacks from remaining capitalist states.

Such a state will not allow freedom to the capitalists to agitate and organize for the return of the old order of exploitation. But it will grant the workers and their allies, not just freedom to criticize, but the right to run society in their own interest. It will openly state its nature, that it is a proletarian dictatorship, and will not hide behind such hypocritical phrases as a "state of the whole people," or "Bill of Rights socialism." Only when classes themselves have been eliminated, that is when communism itself has been achieved, will there be freedom for all -- but then there will be no state, and therefore also no democracy, which is a form of state rule.

All this is what it is muddled and contradicted by phrases such as "Bill of Rights socialism."

CP's "New Stage" of Militant Reformism

Since the CPUSA's convention in December, 1991, the leadership has expounded a lot of hoopla about its so-called new militancy. Gus Hall expressed this in his speech at the National Mid-term Conference in September of 1993: "The Communist Party at a New Stage." As one of the key features of this new stage he discussed the need for more open talk about socialism. He said "we do very little writing and talking about socialism, USA. Popular pamphlets on this subject would go like hotcakes -- if they were really popular, short and provocative.

"The pamphlet 'Yes, There's a Way out of the Economic Mess We're In' is the kind of pamphlet I mean. We are the only ones who are uniquely in a position to provide real, practical and far-reaching solutions. We need to arm our members with new and creative ways to discuss socialism in every setting and struggle."⁽⁹⁾

We will shortly examine this pamphlet to see the kind of "socialism" Hall is talking about -- a completely non-revolutionary, utopian socialism. But first let us look briefly at the reasons for this new militancy.

The crisis of capitalism has begun to seriously affect the mass of common workers in this country. The boom after World War II, based on extracting increased super-profits from the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, had allowed the imperialists to distribute more crumbs to a large section of the U.S. workers in the form of increased wages and benefits. But this boom has come to an end long ago. Real wages of the working class have been on a continual decline for more than 20 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. The periods of growth in the capitalist economic cycle have brought no benefits and barely any increase in jobs for U.S. workers. For many, belief in the "American dream" has been severely shaken.

Many workers are looking for a way out of this system of exploitation. It is for this reason that the CP must be more aggressive in putting forward its Mickey Mouse version of socialism. In essence, it must run ahead in order to more effectively hold back the more revolutionary workers.

Now let us examine the type of socialism Gus Hall is talking about.

In the pamphlet on the economic crisis that he refers to in his speech, Hall begins by correctly pointing out some of the social benefits that are currently under attack by the government -- social security, unemployment insurance, and other social services. He points to some of the ills of capitalism -- the permanent state of crisis, downsizing the economy, etc. He then moves on to the question of a solution. He asks: "Is it possible to have a system, a society that constitutionally guarantees the right to a job, a decent place to live, free health, medical, dental and child care, free public education from nursery to graduate school?" He says: "The starting point must be to go after the cause of the crisis and our deteriorating quality of life: private, corporate ownership and control of our country's production and resources."

How does he propose bringing this about?

"First, we should approach the solutions from a partisan standpoint that sees the needs, welfare and interests of the working and poor people as society's number one priority.

"Second, on this basis, cancel the $4 trillion national debt...

"Third, the public should take over -- perhaps by power of eminent domain -- all of the multinational monopoly corporations...

"Why not set up committees, board or councils made up of workers -- Black, Brown and white -- and their communities and turn the ownership and operation of these corporations over to those who produce the products?...

"What would this new kind of society be called? Though it doesn't really matter what one calls it, most call it socialism."⁽¹⁰⁾

We have quoted at length from Hall's pamphlet so that the reader can see what kind of "socialism" the CP is talking about, one that they are hesitant to even call socialism. What is wrong with such a description? It is that it completely ignores the class struggle and the class nature of the capitalist state. The capitalist class and their state are not even mentioned in Hall's discussion. Presumably, according to Hall, they will sit by quietly and allow "the public" to take over the multinational monopoly corporations, the source of all their vast wealth. And the public will supposedly do this by "power of eminent domain" -- a power given to the capitalist state to take over individual's private property in certain circumstances (such as the land around the planned building of a railroad). Even Hall's discussion of "councils made up of workers" to which the corporations would be turned over ignores the main functions of such workers' councils under socialism. For these are, first and foremost, organs of the workers state, not just for control of production.⁽¹¹⁾

Hall's description of socialism calls to mind his mentor, Khrushchev, and his call for a "peaceful transition to socialism." The description in Hall's pamphlet is one of "socialism" without proletarian revolution. It is the type of abstract counterposing of capitalism and socialism that Lenin criticized the Mensheviks for. It completely ignores the revolutionary measures needed to bring socialism about: the overthrow of the state power of the capitalist class, which is a dictatorship over the working class; the establishment by the working class of its own dictatorship over the overthrown capitalists; the expropriation of the capitalists without compensation, and the setting up of a system of general accounting and control by the working class.

Hall's idea of socialism could be dismissed as laughable if it were not put forward by the head of a party that still calls itself "Communist." It shows how far the CPUSA has gone in betraying Marxism-Leninism, which it still claims to uphold.

CP's Revisionism Rooted in Repudiation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

We have seen that the CP is a thoroughly revisionist party of reformism within the capitalist system, one that has betrayed the working class by trying to keep it within the confines of this system. The CP has long ago forsaken the goal of socialist revolution. The root of this is the CP's abandonment of the fundamental Marxist goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the previous issue of Workers' Herald, we showed how both the CP and the WWP refused to expose the nature of the U.S. state as representing a dictatorship of the capitalist class. They therefore refuse to call for its overthrow in a socialist revolution by the U.S. working class, which will then set up its own dictatorship over the overthrown capitalists, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 Lenin pointed out that, without the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, any party, even if it calls itself "socialist" or "communist," is not Marxist. (See box below.)

We remind our readers of the statement by Gus Hall in 1989, when he was still backing Gorbachev and his followers in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He said: "The process of democratization and decentralization taking place in the socialist world is helping those parties to shed some theoretical concepts that correctly reflected the old days. For example, most have dropped the concept of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' which our party stopped using 40 years ago."⁽¹²⁾

In the last few years, the CP has talked of a revitalized, more militant party, with a more open face, public mass meetings, CP electoral campaigns, etc. But we have seen that it has in fact remained what it has been for decades, that is, a special adjunct of the Democratic Party. Once one has given up the fundamental principles the rest is just tactics. We urge everyone who really supports Marxism-Leninism to break with the idea of revitalizing the CP, which would only be a revitalized revisionist party, and join us in forging a new genuine, revolutionary socialist Marxist-Leninist party of the U.S. working class.

Fight Opportunism,
Organize the Advanced Workers

We know that there are those who genuinely want socialism, but do not understand the need for these exposures of the opportunists. They are under the illusion that the opportunists, despite all their "weaknesses," are somehow helping to work towards socialism. This is a serious error, comrades. If the genuine Marxist-Leninists do not, from the beginning (and we are far from being at the beginning in our struggle with opportunism) clearly expose the role of the opportunists in holding back the revolution, we will never be able to play the leading role in an actual revolutionary situation.

It was this feature of the Bolsheviks, their prolonged struggle with the opportunists, which allowed them to take advantage of the revolutionary crisis during the first imperialist war to bring about a socialist revolution in Russia. The genuine communists in other countries, even in Germany, were in a much weaker situation than the Bolsheviks, not only because of the objective conditions, but because they had only begun to carry out a systematic struggle against "their own" opportunists. Lenin pointed this out clearly when he said: "One of the necessary conditions for preparing the proletariat for its victory is a long, stubborn and ruthless struggle against opportunism, reformism, social-chauvinism, and similar bourgeois influences and trends, which are inevitable, since the proletariat is operating in a capitalist environment. If there is no such struggle, if opportunism in the working-class movement is not utterly defeated beforehand, there can be no dictatorship of the proletariat. Bolshevism would not have defeated the bourgeoisie in 1917-19 if before that, in 1903-17, it had not learned to defeat the Mensheviks, i.e., the opportunists, reformists, social-chauvinists, and ruthlessly expel them from the party of the proletarian vanguard."⁽¹³⁾

We also know that the majority of workers will understand our agitation and propaganda only in part. But our task now is to win over the advanced to genuine Marxism-Leninism. Without first doing this, it will be impossible to win the masses of workers. People may say that we are small, but numbers is not now the main thing. A small organization of dedicated, genuine revolutionaries is needed to win over the advanced, who can then win over the mass of workers to our side. History has shown that this is the only way. Anything else, despite good intentions of those who want to immediately "win over the masses," can only lead to failure and the falling back into reformism.

Some 65 years ago, Stalin pointed out the key role that a genuine Communist Party in the United States must play. He said: "I think, comrades, that the American Communist Party is one of those few Communist Parties in the world upon which history has laid tasks of a decisive character from the point of view of the world revolutionary movement."⁽¹⁴⁾ We still need to build such a Communist Party, one that will faithfully carry out these tasks. We call on all genuine Marxist-Leninists to join us in this.

Notes:

1. See "Beware of False 'Defenders' of Marxism: the CPUSA and Workers World Party," in Workers' Herald, #1, 1992.

2. Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism, Chapter VIII.

3. This even though the aim of the revolution at that stage was to set up a bourgeois-democratic republic, and even though the alternative to the right of the Cadets was the Black Hundreds, the tsarist party of extreme reaction and pogroms.

4. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 320.

5. See A. Badayev, The Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma, 1929, reprinted by Proletarian Publishers.

6. Political Affairs, November 1993, p. 9.

7. CP pamphlet: Forge Unity Through Struggle, p. 1.

8. The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, in the chapter entitled "Bourgeois and Proletarian Democracy," reprinted in Party Organizer, No. 6, p. 9.

9. Political Affairs, November, 1993, p. 14.

10. "Yes, There is a way out of the economic mess we're in!", p. 12-15.

11. Lenin criticized a similar view held by the German Social-Democrat Karl Kautsky in his book The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky. See the chapter "The Soviets Dare Not Become State Organizations" reprinted in Party Organizer, No. 8. The word Soviet is the Russian word for council.

12. People's Daily World, November 30, 1989.

13. Lenin, The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, published in this issue of Workers Herald.

14. From "Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the E.C.C.I. (May 6, 1929)," in Stalin's Speeches on the American Communist Party, reprinted by Proletarian Publishers.

Click here to return to the U.S. Index