![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
MIM has reviewed this boring newspaper of the "Communist Party-USA" (CP=U$A) many times before, but this time, to shorten the review, we thought to look only for articles that say something that Democrats would not say. As we studied the paper closely we noticed that there is little evidence that the "Communist Party USA" even publishes it anymore. Neither the front page nor the page two box mention "Communist Party" anywhere-- an example of opportunism that gets the CP=U$A no where, a typical example of a compromise much overrated for its effectiveness.
The communists in the united $tates number less than 0.01% of the population and so they thrash about wildly for means of increasing their numbers. Most common are garden variety right opportunist compromises such as taking the words "communist" and "imperialist" out. Not till a letter from a reader and later on page 14 do we see "communist" mentioned in the February 24-March 2 2007 issue as a possibility for the newspaper's owners.
Admittedly, we would not usually hear the Democrats talk about "Cuba's Internet access cramped by U.S. blockade." On the other hand, Cuba itself has watered down its ideology to below even the revisionist tripe it used to be. Another short article mentions action against corruption in the phony Communist Party of China. Then again, such an article might appear as a short blurb in an imperialist paper, because it had no real ideological content. A short article also announces a gathering of communists and socialists in Paraguay. The PWW is also good about quoting its sister party in Iran, the Tudeh Party, but the quotes themselves are nothing that Democrats would not say, with the possible exception of the use of the word "hegemonistic" in reference to the united $tates. The overall pattern is that CP-USA uses the "c" word mostly in connection to its sister parties abroad. These short mostly vague stories on international issues narrowly boost the spirits of CP=U$A members without advancing class consciousness.
On the editorial page, the lead editorial for the February 24-March 2 2007 paper endorses racist suffragette Susan B. Anthony and CIA spy on communists Gloria Steinem. Former "Communist Party USA" member Angela Davis had already written a book including details on Susan B. Anthony. Now that Davis is gone from PWW, apparently the line is pro-Anthony. One phrase a Democrat might not use appeared in the second editorial: "A radical reorganization of priorities is essential." That is as far as it goes ideologically in the PWW.
Far more references in the paper would suggest that it is a wing of the Democratic Party. Attacks on neo-cons alone, support for Ned Lamont as the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut, cheerleading for the Democratic majority in Congress on Iraq and several articles with favorable mention of Ted Kennedy more than outweigh the articles cheerleading for Cuba as if it were communist.
The April 14-20 2007 issue continues to celebrate the Communist Party of Iraq, despite the fact that it served in the colonial administration of Iraq from the beginning of the U.$. invasion. At the beginning of the invasion, there was no pretense of Iraqi self- government and Amerikans Jay Garner and Paul Bremer respectively headed the colonial administration. For this reason alone, no real communist takes the "Communist Party USA" or "Communist Party of Iraq" seriously anymore. Service to a colonial regime is the definitive mark of a party infiltrated by the federal government. Although all parties that have been around long enough are infiltrated by the federal government, there is still a chance of having a political line not approved by the Bush administration. There is nothing in the Marxism-Leninism that the CP=U$A claims to uphold that could possibly be construed to mean support of U.$. colonial regimes, never mind participation as a lackey in such a regime.
The most ideological statement in the April 14-20 2007 issue is a criticism of Mugabe in Zimbabwe. That statement distinguishes between communists and non-communists in a way that the "CP-USA" does not do in its own coverage of U.$. issues. MIM would suggest that organizations serving the U.$. labor aristocracy, quoting imperialist Ted Kennedy, calling for "impeachment" as if the problem were Bush and not an imperialist system--we suggest that these organizations not draw fine distinctions in the politics of oppressed Third World countries or be called out for national chauvinism.
If one claims to be proletarian internationalist and has more good to say about Ted Kennedy than Mugabe, one is majorly f*ed in the head. For that matter, CP=U$A is still cheerleading for Martin Luther King who never led a liberation. Mugabe led armed struggle against Rhodesian colonialism. Martin Luther King was a non-communist and so is Mugabe. The difference is that Martin Luther King preached for redivision of superprofits and became a precursor for U.$. globalization, integrated instruments of empire. Mugabe has no super- profits to redistribute in Zimbabwe and that is his real crime in the eyes of the oinking CP=U$A.
It's Amerikan national chauvinism to have so much good to say about Martin Luther King in dual page spreads but not Mugabe. The National Board of the Communist Party USA is saying "Tactics must provide a basis of united action in Congress by centrist Democrats, moderate Republicans, and progressive Democrats who also advocate more advanced demands." At the same time, the CP=U$A is saying this about Mugabe and his "'exaggerated anti-imperialist credentials'": "Mugabe has, at times, taken Zimbabwe on a path of cooperation with monopoly capital." Holy cow, CP-USA just got done calling for majority unity in the U.$. imperialist Congress, imperialist den of imperialist dens and yet it has the gall to say poor Mugabe is guilty of "cooperation with monopoly capital." Mugabe is undergoing more attacks from monopoly capital than the CP=U$A and CP-Iraq combined.
In reading these issues of the CP=U$A paper, what stands out is that on domestic issues, the CP=U$A is indistinguishable from Democrats. It is only in speaking of its international sister organizations when the CP=U$A says anything ideological or uses the "c" word. This leads to a neo-colonial line where the CP=U$A has more good to say about occupation colonial authorities in Iraq and imperialists like Kennedy than it has to say about non-communists like Mugabe who are nonetheless besieged by the imperialists.
The truth is that it is impossible to stay "communist" by representing a majority inside U.$. borders. CP=U$A's service to the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie comes first and proves MIM's point. It is only in its discussion of parties outside the U$A where the CP=U$A allows any potential of radical thought. Yet what actually happens is support for outright colonialism in Iraq and neo-colonialism in Zimbabwe.