Response to Living in an Era Change
I agree the Communist Party should change its name. Why? Primarily because its hard, in fact impossible, to design a growth strategy for the Communist Party that does not immediately get compromised BY the name. And the first step in compromise is the reluctance or unwillingness of either its members or friends to openly and publicly associate with it. Most every growth scheme falls prey to this weakness. Its pointless, in politics, to give excuses for this, no matter if they are valid. For example, the legacy of the repressions against members of the Communist Party casts a long shadow. But the minute you offer that as one 'explanation' of what stands in the way of a party named "Communist Party" achieving a mass influence, you have not weakened the obstacle, but probably strengthened it!
Against this weakness, evidence is constantly available showing that the actual political positions of the Communist Party, including the very democratic visions of both structural reform, and a democratic socialist-market transition period, articulated in many of its leaders' speeches, and in documents from its conventions, are embraced by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of working and progressive people. But none of these folks feel any incentive to submit to a journey through the entire history of 20th century socialism, especially the collapsed Soviet model, or commit themselves to any perspective not thoroughly allied to science, and the rise in wealth and power of the working class, in order to join this struggle.
Another important casualty of both the name "Communist Party" and the party's small size is a nearly constant infection with sectarianism of various kinds that wastes a lot of time and does a lot of damage way beyond its actual numbers. A substantial portion of the comments debate on the PWW website is of this character. Whereas the DESIRED interactions is with broader forms: OFA, PDA, or Center for American Progress, and many others. Thats where the debates about tactics strengthening the positive forces within the Democratic party toward a more consistent class position on health care, financial reform, energy, infrastructure stimulus, toward a firmer stand on direct government employment to turn back the right influence on the unemployed and other victims of the economic crisis, toward more internationalism in approaches to global inequality – thats where debate will have their greatest impact.
Sectarianism of many kinds has long plagued both the US labor movement, and the Left in general. Some groups have even MORE trouble with it than the CP. The only way to prevent sectarianism from continuing to marginalize us to stay focused on the overall progress of the labor and workers' movements as a whole.
How do we fulfill that overriding mission in these times? Not a simple question to answer. And neither dogma, or fine quotes of so-called authorities will help much. Defining the tasks that most mark and define "the overall progress" of the movement must be the cornerstone of the name-change discussion. I think C.J. may not be correct in thinking a name change will not also require some policy changes, as well as some important political preparation.
On political preparation, the result must be a significantly LARGER organization, as well as one that can more easily form and participate in coalitions and electoral formations. A name change that sounds good but does not result in more members will be a sterile move, and will not impress many. On policy, the bottom line must be: following this crowd is the path to more VISIBLY more wealth and more power and more equality – and a stronger peace – for working people. We must accept that for the foreseeable future, a mixed economy, significantly "more socialist" than the current mix, but still supporting a very large market system, will be the best hope the further advance or working peoples interests. We should ENTHUSIASTICALLY promote reforms in this context. The objective changes in infrastructure, education and public goods required to recover full employment, and a rising standard of living, will raise the overall socialization of capital and work to unprecedented levels – levels that in turn may lay the foundations for the elevation of much of an advanced society's work to something very close to communist labor as envisioned by Karl Marx. While markets will remain, it is clear that a very strong tendency in high tech production and services, as well as in areas of the economy afflicted with large market failures, is toward the exchange of very WEAK commodities, that are either quasi or outright public goods still outfitted in commodity dress but only for lack of new, suitable clothes.
The "new" party must be unabashedly public and open. Such a transition is likely to require some difficult changes in style for an organization that for much of its life has had to cope with semi-legality. In fact, I suggest that the first steps toward this may be more wisely initiated as electoral formations with an explicitly electoral mission before attempting to reinvent the entire organization. Choosing elections as the test proves to mainstream political forces that you intend to be serious, and to the sectarian left that we won't be found on the sidelines.
Lets face it: the new policy and new formation(s) are social-democratic plus internationalism in political content. No one know for sure how long 10% unemployment – and thus the threat of profound instability and fascist dangers – will last. Krugman says – until there is a big leftward shift – forever. Even Republicans make no predictions – and they normally feel free to lie with impunity. We have solutions, or at least we will. We can get our message out there. There are places where we can run as Democrats, and many local elections where non-partisan or independent candidates are highly viable. Yes we can!
I submit our planning NOW for the 2012 elections are the best framework for finding out how serious we are, and how far we can go.
Thanks to C.J. for introducing what SHOULD be a VERY important discussion.
