I've read with interest the contribution of C.J. Atkins and others. For me the Atkins article was less about the name of the Communist Party and more about the content and form of the organization and its goal. The observation that the Party is small, and has been small for a long period of time should concern all members. And the desire for change is important.

What makes a Party attractive? Because an attractive organization speaks directly to peoples' needs and has the potential for growth. Let me speak for myself. I joined or rejoined the Party in 2008. I had been in the Party for 35 years, leaving in 1992. In 2008 there was, as now, a large and developing democratic movement, one that had the potential for an electoral victory. I read with great interest the PW and Party documents. The direction was one that resonated with me. The Party's position suggested the possibility to defeat the right and ultra right and to create conditions more favorable for peoples' struggles. A time for the working class and democratic people to learn more about political struggle in the most practical fashion. A time to organize, a time to test out alliances with other forces ready to fight for this or that. The right had been in control of most or all branches of government since 1980 and had become entrenched with a right wing culture that was pervasive. Racism and homophobia were fashioned and refashioned to divide and disorient the electorate. When they could they opted to dismantle pieces of the social safety net, thwart struggles and assume and aggressive posture in the world. When they couldn't they prepared the way in the political arena for the next assault. That meant in practical matters that conditions of work and life were worsening and redress of grievances was becoming difficult at best. The possibility of winning any demand was dim. The fight of 2005 against the Bush effort to privatize social security gave rise to a movement uniting labor and seniors in opposition. In fact the movement predates this struggle, but it is a good starting point for this article.

The victory against privatization gave the movement a push forward and contributed to the Democratic Congressional victory of 2006. The Bush Administration had taken the country into two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, overreaching, scandals of many sorts and stagnating wages along with a special effort to alter many state electoral laws to favor the Republicans for the foreseeable future. In short it was a bonanza for the right and sectors of capital that supported them. This scenario accounts for much of the mass anger and desire for big change. Still, I have to say that the most critical element was the financial and cyclical crisis coming together in the summer of 2008. While poorly understood, the multi-layered, complex crisis was clearly something that struck fear into the hearts of bankers and politicians as well as ordinary people. A few commentators suggested that there existed a possibility of a world financial calamity. This together with swift action taken by the Bush Administration to bail out the big banks angered the American people. The reaction was visceral and prominent. The Republican candidate John McCain was non-plussed, while Barak Obama spoke directly to the electorate expressing confidence in the system and the remedies available to right the situation. All of the above by no means diminishes the historic and ground breaking role played by labor and other peoples' movements and organizations to elect the country's first African American President. The 6 point margin was comfortable. We soon recognized the right had sustained yet another defeat only to organize and reorganize into a potent and active force with gobs of political money to play on fear, develop demagogue and attack the democratic victory.

The Party offers a correction

The right was set back in the '08 election but it was not out of the game. For any major progress to to made and sustained the democratic movement must gain a knock out, put the right out of business.

The tax and unemployment compromise of 2010 was struck a few weeks after the Republicans made huge gains winning the House of Representatives with 63 seats. The compromise struck between the Obama Administration and the Republican leadership was an extension of Federal unemployment support for 13 months affecting millions of  unemployed coupled with money for the Earned Income Tax Credit, benefiting low wage workers, a reduction in payroll taxes for  one year and extension of the Bush era tax reduction for two years. The right got Bush era tax cut extension for the richest 2%  and a few other items. There was anger at the additional tax help for the wealthy.  But when asked about the package of tax cuts and unemployment the compromise won majority of public support. The idea of still more tax cuts for the rich angered many including including those on the left.

Some tucked the anger in their back pocket to be used another day, while others attacked the compromise as a sell out. The Party spoke to the issues – what is required in a situation when the right has increased power? Is it viable to spoil for a fight, a fight that can't be won at this moment? Should we ignore the actual power relationships and the mood of the country and charge ahead, dam the torpedoes? etc. For me this underscores the crucial place of politics, electoral politics, legislative politics and all other forms of struggle for immediate aims and the role of the Communist Party.

We might ask, what kind of Party is this? What kind of organization connects the struggle for democracy and immediate gains to that of the longer run struggle to end capitalist class relations? First it's an organization, a membership, that believes that socialism is the next historic system in the development of human society. It is one based on the experience of capitalism, not just the experience of elites studying but of workers in their daily lives.

Socialism, as Marx conceived it is "...the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie." (MECW, p 304) Further, subscribing to the contributions of Marx's study of philosophy, history and capitalist process of production gives current socialists a scientific basis to study current experience. There is philosophy – dialectical and historical materialism. "Capital" is the seminal work explaining 19th century capitalism and revealing the role of classes – socialized production, and private appropriation. There is more than 150 years of written work reflecting thinking, study and action in the world working class movement. These are the credentials. Do the failures, defeats, crimes and backwardness out weigh the accomplishments? I think not, but that is more fully for history and future generations to decide. It is also quite true that no movement can hope to grow and develop, be successful and understand current life based solely or even mostly on the basis of historic contributions. That's why I choose to describe what I know about the CPUSA's role in the current moment. Further I wish to see the CPUSA go forward to study and better understand contemporary developments in U.S. life.

No one knows the future. No one knows when and how the working class, its organizations and allies will decide that's enough, capitalism has no answers, no options – we need a change and go about organizing for that change.  And to be clear, it isn't an epiphany it is a process. That said, it does not appear to be on the horizon.

I believe it is the organizations and people who have the creds who are now and will be called on to lead. Those who are tenacious, reliable, who have a track record, who show the capacity to learn and change, who can discern who is the main enemy at a given moment, who show who are the allies and how to neutralize those who cannot be won. And of course, those who build necessary unity. These are among the requirements. In short – leadership.

The current Party is based on the Leninist theory of the Party. In fact, the theory and practice of this Party has changed much over the years. It's sufficient to suggest to the reader to think about the model employed by the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the effort world wide to imitate. The concepts that underpin the Party organization need refreshment. Why? because we live in the 21st century with significant changes in U.S. capitalism and its world position. There is a larger working class than ever before, one that is more heterogeneous – nationality, race, ethnicity, wide range of income and social position, to name a few categories.
Why? because we live in a nation that has sophisticated institutionalized capitalist structures. Why? because we need to understand that which is particular to our nation and time.

I would go with a Party based on the science of society, the laws of social development, one that is based on Marxism and draws on other contributors. I would go with a working class Party, in the sense that it is this class that has no vested interests in defending the right to exploit and by its position learns the need to eliminate exploitation. I would go with a disciplined Party, which acts reflecting  unity and one that has the courage to explore options and consequences. I would go for a Party that actively builds consensus within its ranks as a matter of principle. I would support an organization that actively brings the membership into the course of discussion. I would support a Party, because it is politics and the processes around politics that is decisive. The word party connotes politics and leaves open the possibility to participate more fully in elections. The Party should be a Party of socialism. And finally, I think it should be called the Communist Party, USA. On this last point, I believe any change in name alone is not useful. Should the name be changed, given no fundamental change or shift in principle, it would be known as so and so organization (formerly CPUSA). In brief, we take with us all that we were and all that we are, warts and all. And what do we gain? Not an attractive sight.

There remains the need for a fuller and extended discussion of how to build the Party, still there's a need to know what kind of organization it is.

Change is essential. The question is what kind of change?