Living in an Era of Change

4125 800x4

The 29th CPUSA Convention was a big success and will hopefully go a long way toward improving the party’s contributions to the democratic movement.  The strategic policy of uniting all the core forces and movements to defeat the ultra-right and consolidate the people’s coalition was resoundingly re-endorsed by the delegates.  The quality of the discussion both before and at the convention reflected the hard work that members are involved in on the ground and a willingness to do the kind of hard thinking necessary to match it. 

Recent articles in Political Affairs and People’s World show that the party’s process of confronting contemporary political challenges and looking for ways to move forward did not end when the convention adjourned in New York.

In their Political Affairs article, “Radical Ideas, Real Politics,” Joel Wendland and Peter Zerner launched a discussion of why Marxism remains an “essential, objective, and working-class-based” methodology for analyzing and meeting the tasks that lie ahead.  I agree with the authors’ premises and in this article hope to draw attention to the need to think anew about organizational and communication issues.  While this is of course an inwardly-focused matter, it has important ramifications for our ability to turn our “radical ideas” into “real politics.”  Particularly, this has to do with the way we communicate our message to America’s working people, how we envision our approach to electoral politics, and our relationship to other organizations on the center and left.

Wendland and Zerner said, “There are no past experiences in other societies which can serve as models for today’s complexities, contradictions, and possibilities.”  The party has rightly determined that any future socialism in our country will be uniquely American, in tune with the history, experience, and traditions of the U.S. people. Bringing our organization into accord with our vision of what socialism will be and how it will come to the United States means rethinking how the CPUSA presents itself.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE

For more than ten years now, the party has been taking a hard look at its ideology, organizational structure, personnel requirements, and financial accounting and made the decisions necessary to ensure the survival of the organization.

The Marxism that is now practiced in the CPUSA and learned at YCL schools is an open, innovative, and creative methodology that has – to a great extent – left behind the dogmatism and sectarianism of what passed for ‘Marxism-Leninism’ in the past.

The structures of the national office and the various departments of the party have been reorganized and reconfigured to more efficiently carry out the tasks entrusted to them.  Instances of repetition of responsibilities and overlapping assignments have been remedied in many situations. This of course led in some cases to personnel consolidation and a lowering of staff requirements.

On the financial front, for too many years the party had been eating into the financial legacy left to it by previous generations, thereby jeopardizing its future survival.  Thanks to the work of the finance department, our organization is now on a much firmer footing and lives within its means.

None of these were easy challenges, but to its credit the party and its leadership have been up to the task.  I think that our process of renewal should continue moving forward no matter how difficult we may find it.  With that said, I turn to what I feel to still be a key, but unaddressed, issue.

FACING THE FUTURE

The Communist Party USA has a 90-year history which its members can take pride in. From the struggles for industrial organization during the Depression to the defense of civil liberties against McCarthyism’s attacks, and from the fights against racism to the struggles for peace, the party has shown itself time and time again to be a steadfast fighter for the interests of the American working class and people.  The pages of the party’s history are filled with such chapters.  These proud traditions should never be forgotten. 

However, the organization cannot live on its laurels forever.  A way must be found to build on these traditions while also making the CPUSA a political organization that is suited to meet the political needs of today.

The party has to be brave enough to collectively face up to the reality that, no matter how correct it may be when it comes to theory or strategy and tactics, as long as it bears the name ‘Communist Party’, it will be cutting itself off from large numbers of progressive activists and leaders.  Many on the left agree with the CPUSA’s emphasis on center-left unity, its focus on defeating the ultra-right, and its approach to political independence. 

Communism, though, is equated with names such as Stalin, Ceausescu, and Mao in the popular consciousness.  Unfortunately, names such as DuBois, Winston, or Flynn do not pop into the minds of most people.  The communist ‘brand’ is undeniably sullied beyond reprieve for the vast majority of Americans.  Pleading with people to allow us to explain what communism is really about is a pretty useless and time-wasting tactic.  The struggle for a better future – a socialist future – does not have to (and should not) always result in a debate about the Soviet experiment. 

In a recent letter to the editor of the Morning Star, the newspaper associated with the CP of Britain, a reader expressed clearly the same types of points when attempting to persuade his comrades it was time to change the party’s name: “We can continue to roar from inside our ghetto but no one will listen if we don’t change our language.” He continued, “Our aim should be to communicate with people on their level, not seek to maintain a spurious purity of dogma” (Morning Star letters, 16 May 2010).

As much as it may hurt for many members to admit, no organization named the Communist Party will be a part of the mainstream of American politics. The CPUSA came closest to that in the 1930s and 40s, but that success is unlikely to be repeated.  Too much history has happened since then: McCarthyism, the Stalin revelations, the Cold War, fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the CP-ruled states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Communism is a brand tarnished beyond repair in the United States.

A few critical readers of this article will undoubtedly charge that I am guilty of “American Exceptionalism” – the old criticism hurled against CP leaders who sought a more nationally-specific path to socialism.  The party is an American institution dealing with the political challenges of the modern United States.  If our theories, strategy, and tactics were not uniquely American, then we would be of no use to the working class. As Wendland and Zerner said, we are trying to reach America’s working people – “our constituency.”

While history may eventually call upon a political organization to complete the historic tasks associated with a communist party by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, that period of time is not upon us.  John Case made this observation when in a recent PA article he said that naming the party communist “before such time as the tasks of constructing a society reflecting the communist ideal are fully prepared, is premature.” (Reflections on the 29th Convention of the CPUSA, June 2010

His point gets right to the heart of the matter.  To simply sit satisfied in our small organization called the Communist Party and take comfort in the conviction that history will push us to the fore is to live in a fantasy world. It does a disservice not only to our own political effectiveness, but to the larger movement that needs the kind of insights into theory, strategy, and tactics that we can help develop. We have to remove this obstacle from our full participation in the democratic struggles of our time.

Many Communist Parties around the world went about transforming themselves at times of crisis, when they were no longer in tune with the broad trends of progressive politics in their countries or their bases of support were shrinking. The CPUSA, though small, does not find itself in such a condition.  We are relatively united and making a positive contribution to the broad people’s coalition in our country.

We should take advantage of this situation to undergo a more thorough renewal.  The crisis of socialism is now twenty years passed, and conditions have developed which make it possible for the CPUSA to become a more outwardly-oriented socialist organization.

As Sam Webb said in his report to the 29th Convention, “Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel…If it has an ‘old or foreign’ feel, people will reject it.” I think this insight should be expanded beyond just our vision of socialism as expressed in our statements and publications; it should include our “brand,” so to speak.  If people are turned off by the name on the label, it is unlikely they will take too much time to see what is inside the package.

Just as the Soviet model of socialism always had that foreign feel for the vast majority of Americans, so too does the name Communist Party. We can argue over whether this is due more to decades of red-baiting, propaganda, and repression or to the less-than-sterling historical record of many governments run by Communist Parties.  At this point in history that does not matter for purposes of what our organization should call itself.  The causes of anti-communism should of course continue to be investigated by historians, but when our members are on the front-lines of the struggle against the ultra-right, do we really want the whole history of communism to be their primary hurdle? 

Our chief adversaries should be the ultra-right, not the general public’s preconceived notions of what communism is or was. Let’s jump more solidly into the mainstream of political struggle. We should project our vision of a more just, equitable, and solidaristic future (i.e. socialism) without making our coalition allies instantly associate us with all that was reprehensible about Stalinism.

In discussions I have had with some people, it has been stated that it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves, we would still be red-baited. That is almost certainly true.  However, it cannot be denied that red-baiting is a lot easier for the ultra-right demagogues like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh when we stubbornly stick to a name that may make us feel comfortable but does little to help us expand our influence.

An organization does not have to be called ‘Communist Party’ in order to be oriented toward socialism.  A change of name does not mean a change in principles. 

But changing the name is not just a pragmatic concern.  It should not be seen as simply switching the sign on the storefront. While we would be re-emphasizing the positive traditions we have always stood for – peace, equality, democracy, and socialism – we would also be publicly rejecting the negative traits associated with communist parties, particularly those of the Soviet bloc.  We would be declaring in the clearest way possible our rejection of the history of purges, repression, undemocratic practices, dictatorial power, and subordination that sullied the Soviet period.

Of course a change in name will not be some kind of panacea for the party’s long-standing problems of recruitment and retention. But over the years, people have overwhelmingly joined the CPUSA because of the work they see its members doing and the theoretical education that it provides. These are the key characteristics of our organization that would be preserved and hopefully expanded. Changing the name will not bring members pouring into the organization; that is not what I’m claiming. But given that the party has been a rather negligible force on the American political scene as a whole for at least the last several decades, we have to ask what benefit do we get from retaining a name from another era?

There is also the real possibility that if the name "Communist Party" is dropped, it will be picked up by some ultra-left formation or sect.  We can be sure that "Communist Party" would still be a hot brand on the sectarian left as demonstrated by the never-ending list of parties with the names containing the words socialist, labor, workers, communist, liberation, Marxist-Leninist, or some combination thereof. If we surrender the title, we would be taking a risk that some grouping with politics very different from those of the CPUSA would try to lay claim to not only the name but the history and the heritage that goes along with it.  While such a turn of events would perhaps not do justice to the party’s past, we have to decide whether it is more important to be loyal to a name or to our long-term goals – the real things that generations of party members have struggled for in our country.

OPENING DOORS OUTWARD

Having dealt with the name issue, I would like to briefly comment on our efforts to dive more into the mainstream of progressive and left politics in the United States.  This means looking at questions of not just our name, but the type of organization we see ourselves to be. Is the CPUSA really a political party? Is it an organization or association of progressive working-class activists? What form would make us the most effective fighters for unity and social progress?

To deal with the first question, we have to ask not only whether the CPUSA is a political party, but we have to understand what a political party really is in the United States. The question here is not as simple to answer as it is in multi-party parliamentary systems, for instance. Generally, political parties in the latter types of systems are organizations contesting for office around an agreed ideological platform and having official membership rolls. Communist parties, though of course having their own unique characteristics such as democratic centralism and a revolutionary perspective, have historically been formed with such a system in mind. The CPUSA for instance, was formed as a political party in this sense.

But the two-party system of the United States does not fit neatly into this historical understanding of what parties are and what characteristics they have. In our country, as in many two-party states, the parties are coalitions of interests that broadly correlate to a right-left division, but which include people and forces of vastly differing classes, backgrounds, and goals. Political organization, especially as illustrated by the primary system for candidate selection, is relatively loose. 

What this means in practice is that the two parties have become institutions of a semi-governmental nature.  In order to win the majority of offices, candidates must pursue the nomination of one of the two main parties. For those on the left, this means contesting the Democratic primary process and engaging in the local Democratic platform development process. This is the only realistic way to bring progressive principles into electoral reality – definitely at the state and national level, and sometimes the local level as well.

The reactionary right accepted this reality more than 30 years ago and committed themselves to pursuing their aims through a shift in state power.  Without a doubt, they were largely successful.  The domination of the ultra right over much of the political life of our nation from roughly 1980 to 2008 has exemplified their victory.  The Republican Party, though always the defender of corporate interests, was not always the instrument of the Palin-Rand type of fringe elements which dominate today.

Not all elements of the progressive left have drawn the appropriate lessons from this historical development.  Sam Webb points this out in his article, “A Cautionary Tale” in People’s World. As he says, the lesson is simple: “The electoral arena is of overriding importance.  The notion that electoral politics has little progressive potential, that it is ‘politics lite,’ that it pales in the face of direct action (an unnecessary juxtaposition) is mistaken and harmful.”

Political independence has for quite some time, and increasingly in the recent period, been operationalized within the context of the two-party system.  Webb drew our attention to this in his keynote address to the party convention. He said:

New forms of political independence have developed in recent years in important ways, but differently than most of us on the left imagined.  To our surprise, they took shape within the framework of the two-party system, not outside of it, and within labor and other major social organizations, operating under the broad canopy of the Democratic Party.

I agree with Webb that if any alternative, independent third party ever emerges, these formations and organizations will be its basis.  I would stress even more, though, that we should look realistically at the openings for such a third party to develop. Serious electoral reform has not been on the table for decades and is not likely to appear on the popular agenda anytime soon. Efforts to operate in the electoral arena in opposition to both the Democratic and Republican parties only results in splitting the center-left vote and helping the right wing back into office. States or localities that allow fusion votes or alternative voting systems may be able to bypass this problem, but these local specificities cannot be the basis of a generalizable strategy.

Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it.  This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees.  More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.  

However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.

All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well. 

It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such.  By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates.  Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.  

So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice.  The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century.  It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times.  We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • This article is obviously biased and rejectionable as such. But I like it nonetheless. It's good for discussion. Now, nowhere does it examine the pros of keeping "communist" "party" in the label, it only examines the cons. The only pro is briefly mentions is the long history of the Party and its past record of success. It's not a true analysis into the full complexities of changing our name. It's "brand" oriented and thus goes overboard with the belief in its own foregone conclusion. There are books on my website that are written by Marxist-Leninists who tackle the questions of sectarianism and dogmatism, so, there's no objective reason to write a phrase like: "left behind the dogmatism and sectarianism of what passed for ‘Marxism-Leninism’ in the past." Does anyone care/remember why the Bolsheviks changed from RSDLP to Communist Party (in Russian, of course) in the first place? If you look it up, the name was changed to Communist Party for precisely the OPPOSITE reasons used by the author to removed "communist" and potentially "party". Thanks, Eric, for pointing this article out before tomorrow's meeting. --END

    Posted by Robert Cymbala, 11/06/2010 12:31am (13 years ago)

  • Learning of the W.E.B. Du Bois,Paul Leroy Robeson,the YWLL and CPUSA as a teen-ager indirectly through a personal friend of Robeson,maybe this perspective is useful.
    The non-Communist,pro-Communist,in the style of the great peoples'fighter and anti-American apartheid(Jim Crow),anti-fascist champion,Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. quoted appropriatedly and convincingly by our Terrie here,Kenneth Brown Billups,the musicologist and anthropologist,trainer of hundreds of vocalists at the renouned Charles Sumner High(named for the great abolitionists and anti-slaver)taught me and led me to the communist movement,its unique "brand" in the U.S. of A.,and no childish arguing about names will change this uniqueness.
    Dr. Billups called it just that: communist. As stated by this writer earlier in these windows,Lenin himself called it a "scientific name". When the literary giant Communist of the twentieth century Americas,W.E.B. Du Bois,visited revolutionary Russia,during the revolution of Lenin and his compatriots,he called himself a "Bolshevik"not a communist,proving again that,after all is said and done,a name is not a thing. This is just as much a reason to keep the name as it is to drop it -considering specific history and traditions,probably more. This discussion of names,in the end,is infantile.
    The American working people are not stupid. With the international working class,it constitutes the most intelligent force on earth. No name shell game will fool this class-perhaps such will insult it,however,and with that we insult ourselves-we are the working class. In the end,we will not be deceived nor denied.
    Is it possible that this name game is a cover for avoiding grappling with membership,policy and organization questions and our relationship to massive American peoples'struggles in the wake of landmark Supreme Court Decisions like Citizens United and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,and the new terrain of struggle the 2 Nov 2010 challenges offer us as Communists?

    Posted by E.E.W. Clay, 11/05/2010 3:21pm (13 years ago)

  • I think C.J. has written a timely, thought-provoking and necessary article. It deserves careful consideration and tempered responses, which so far reflect most of the sentiments of the responses below.

    I agree with C.J.'s sentiments about the name. What if I say the class warrior Rich Trumka is a communist in all but name only? Somebody's going to say he can't be because he never says the word Lenin or never pays dues. He might cringe at the notion (though I suspect he never cringes at anything except for news like last Nov. 2). Glenn Beck followers would say, yup, toldya so!" Everyday folks might never bat an eyelash; others would vigorously denounce the claim as a smear.

    There is no separating the name from some of the worst atrocities in human history, no matter what verbal gymnastics you do. Of course, capitalism, from genocide of indigenous peoples globally to countless wars to nuclear annihilation to concentration camps has its own record.

    I don't think a comparison of anti-communism to racism is warranted here, because to do so seems to imply that C.J. wants to back of anti-racist struggles and I think that is unfair.

    I think it is true that people do not flock to the communist or socialist movements, despite an uptick in interest in socialist ideas. I do know, however, that dozens of people join the communist party every month. They may never turn out to be the next Claudia Jones or the next Ben Davis, and much of the expressions of commitment to the party they signal differs little from the ways most people say they are Democrats or fans of Green Bay Packers when they don't even live near Wisconsin. But dozens of people each month equals hundreds each year.

    But clearly thousands and hundreds of thousands are needed to be viable -- just ask the Green Party.

    I don't think a focus on a name is the main point. Political work and programs are. Whether or not what we do is or needs to be party work is the main issue here. Whether or not social change comes necessarily at the hands of a political party is the main issue. Clearly in the U.S., history suggests that our historically specific experience is that movements not parties make the most change.

    Posted by Joel Wendland, 11/05/2010 11:10am (13 years ago)

  • "if we want to be a political party then I also think we should be much more in the electoral arena"...

    I agree with Terrie -- this should be the framework within which this discussion can have high value.

    Is there the slightest difference between a radical democratic, and communist, program for 2012? Only one, as far as I can see: the right to advocate the communist ideal as the more reliable guide to the high road for human civilization. And we all have -- I surmise -- a very broad base of agreement in the left of the nation on what radical democratic means. It means the strongest possible and practical economic and political empowerment of working people to correct the 30 year fall in their share of the nation's wealth. It means putting people immediately to work. The WPA worked in the 30's. An updated version will work now. It means directing major public and private investment in THE ABILITIES of ALL our people and in the infrastructure that, as best science can forsee, gives the best grounds for sustainable growth. It means addressing global inequality with equitable global growth; global energy, food and water conflicts, as well as truly failed states, with more representative and democratic, more responsive to changes in balances of power, global governance including enforcement of the ILO charter on working peoples rights. It means recognizing the environmental costs of human activity and factoring them into both prices and taxes. Same with war -- everyone should bear some direct burden of the costs. No putting wars all on the credit card, and having an invisible professional army take care of it.

    Point is: there is broad common ground, and plenty of folks willing to exclude bankers from their consituency both within and outside the Democratic Party. Regardless what happens to the name "communist party" -- an electoral formation founded exclusively on the essentials of a radical democratic agenda --- should be able to make big, and very helpful WAVES, as we almost immediately move into the fateful 2012 election season.

    Posted by John Case, 11/05/2010 10:27am (13 years ago)

  • I appreciate CJ's thinking on how to grow the Communist Party -- and the socialist trend in the U.S. working class. I think the name of a party that stands for socialism, democracy and progress is not a matter of principal. In other words, such a party does not have to have "communist" in its name. (The "communist" party in Cyprus is called the Progressive Party of Working People, for example.)

    That said, I do not agree with the general thrust of this article, which in my opinion, takes a non-struggle approach to the ruling class ideology of anti-communism.

    The ruling class has used anti-communism against the labor and people’s movements for freedom even before there was a U.S. communist party and before the 1917 Russian Revolution, and therefore, before Stalin and the fall of the Soviet Union. (See Labor’s Untold Story for details.)

    Sections of capital and their ultra-right cheerleaders continue to use anti-communism and red-baiting against any force, including the Democratic Party, that may advocate government regulation or policies that would curb the atrocious wealth gap in this country. With this corporate, right-wing cabal, one does not have to be socialist to be red-baited.

    Red-baiting, like other anti-working class ideas and divisions, has to be struggled against. I don’t think changing the name would make this ruling class weapon for division go away. And I don’t believe people will come pouring into the ranks of the party either.

    While interest is up in socialism and left-wing ideas, there has been no great growth spurt in any socialist group in America – with or without the name communist.

    In his last major speech before he was murdered, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., honored W.E.B. Du Bois at a banquet for the publication, Freedomways. Some seven years earlier, Du Bois had very publicly joined the Communist Party, partly as a protest to the U.S. Cold War policies and McCarthyite hysteria that led to jailing people for their ideas.

    King famously said about Du Bois and his political choices:

    “We cannot talk of Dr. Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact he was a Communist in his later years... It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist. Our irrational obsessive anti-communism has led us into many quagmires to be retained as if it was a mode of scientific thinking.”

    King himself had been red-baited throughout his leadership in the civil rights movement.

    CJ describes the affects of anti-communism on the American people: “Communism, though, is equated with names such as Stalin, Ceausescu, and Mao in the popular consciousness.” And that may be. However the word “socialism” is also tainted with the same personalities, problems, short-comings -- and crimes committed -- in its name. So should we use another word in its place? And what would that new name be? Or, is the next step then to soft-pedal socialism?

    Someone told me that American society is infused with anticommunism and cannot be overcome. I replied that I thought American society was infused with racism, so does that mean we should soft-pedal the struggle against it? The struggle on the issues that divide people is part of the political maturation process of American working class and people have to go through and that we all learn from.

    That said I do believe we have to rethink our concepts of membership and style of organization. I think we have to have much more red, white and blue, instead of just red. I always preferred the term Bill of Rights socialism, although it is not used by most of the party anymore.

    And if we want to be a political party then I also think we should be much more in the electoral arena, including running communists for local office where possible.


    Posted by Terrie Albano, 11/04/2010 8:42pm (13 years ago)

  • C.J. - Great article! A lot of real food for thought, free of the crazy attacks and rhetorical over-simplifications.

    In my opinion, it is an honest analysis. An objective analysis that identifies and deals with some very complex organizational and political issues.

    Two questions, then one suggestion:
    1) How do we challenge anti-communism without giving into anti-communism? Having the name 'Communist Party' is objectively a challenge to anti-communism. In other words, in our day-to-day activity, the name forces us to challenge anti-communism. It forces our friends and allies to challenge anti-communism. It also tells us who our friends and allies really are, as we don't want 'summer solders and fair weather friends.'

    In fact, I would argue that we need to push and agitate our friends to stand with us more, that we need to be more assertive and demand our rightful place at the table, that we should demand reciprocity.

    However, that means that we have to really deserve our place at the table; that we have to really be able to get things done, to mobilize people, money and our organization in demonstrable, concrete ways, in ways that affect people's lives. And we have to be able to take credit for it. Only then can we demand reciprocity.

    I think, as our ability to really get things done increases, anti-communism will decrease (at least among the people's movement) precisely because they will need our help. At least that has been my experience.

    2) Would the name change makes it easier for us to work with / within the broad people's movement? Would a name change make it more possible for us to grow our organizations' membership and finances - as people and money have a direct bearing on our ability to get things done, to create the type of change we want to see, to demand reciprocity, to get to socialism.

    I think all suggestions for change have to take into account this one simple question: Will it help us gain members and money? Because without members and money we're ineffective. It won't matter how right we are or what our vision for socialism is if we don't have the troops on the ground.

    My suggestion: We need to take a good, hard, honest look at our organization priorities. Ask ourselves, 'How do we build the organizational infrastructure that facilitates growth, eliminates bottlenecks, gets rid of inefficiencies, and prioritizes leadership development and getting things done.'

    Because when it boils down to it, no one wants to be a member of a ineffective organization - except crazy people.

    That is one of our biggest obstacle to growth - in most places we're just not seen as effective, we just aren't able to get things done, we just can't mobilize the troops.

    If we were more effective (or seen as more effective) questions of names, membership, growth and retention would be less important, as ordinary people want to be a part of an organization that can get things done, that can benefit their lives.

    Anyway, just some thoughts. A great article! In solidarity.

    Posted by TonyPec, 11/04/2010 5:33pm (13 years ago)

  • You lost me. Im not looking to assist yet another collaborationist tool of global capitalism, and thats not what American "working people" need either.

    Posted by Solerso, 11/04/2010 10:07am (13 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments