What follows is meant as a continuation and expansion of some of the ideas outlined in my article "The organizational rubric, power and relevance: A hard look at a proud organization." That article dealt with organizational rubrics and outlined possible approaches to assessing and evaluating our work, some tactics for organizational growth, and questions of accountability and power.

My main focus here is to deal with the seeming lack of clarity surrounding member and organizational self-interest, incentivizing membership and reciprocity. In my opinion, we need to incentivize membership by developing an organizational culture based on reciprocity - in our interactions with both individual members and coalition partners.

Furthermore, I analyze the utilization of material incentives (services) and the utilization of ideology in our collective attempts to build the Communist Party. In this article, I use the words incentives and services interchangeably.

I argue that while ideology is important, material incentives are equally important, and that in my opinion, we have an over-abundance of the former and very little of the later, which is objectively a reflection of our organizational capacity and infrastructure - something we should analyze deeper, and be very honest about.

Additionally, I argue that our long-held organizational practices and assumptions regarding the prominence of ideology have lead to a lack of reciprocity in our organizational culture. Reciprocity is simply defined as the expectation that people and institutions will respond to each other in similar ways, ideally in mutually-beneficial ways.      

As part of this analysis, I ask an important, though largely ignored question: Do our long-held practices and assumptions regarding Communist Party organization and the prominence of ideology work to create disincentives for new member recruitment and consolidation, and in the process hinder our political, organizational and financial capacity for change?

My aim in this article isn't to rehash, restate or redefine general ideas that have broad consensus. In fact, I think restating general ideas that have broad consensus is a poor organizational substitute for critical thinking that encourages original initiatives and experimentation. My goal is, however, to deal with controversial issues, tough questions and sacred cows; my goal is to engage and hopefully help spark new approaches - or remind us of old and successful approaches - to building our organization, as stagnation and retrenchment are not an option.

Additionally, I want to make clear from the start that I have the utmost respect for the comrades - especially Roberta Wood - who have contributed, and will likely continue to contribute, to what has been a multi-year discussion around the nature, role and work of the Communist Party. This article is meant as a comradely contribution and continuation of that long-term discussion.

And finally, as someone who has spent all of their adult life in the Communist Party, I feel compelled to share my ideas - ideas that beg for evidence-based analysis to be proven or disproven - with people I respect, admire and trust. My over-arching assumption is: Only a high degree of openness, internal democracy, organizational flexibility, political courage and honesty will transition the Communist Party USA from a small organization of thousands to a mass organization of hundreds-of-thousands.  

Ideology and incentives

To begin with, I work under the premise that people, not ideology, organize people. Organizationally, we have a tendency to over-rely on words, ideas and slogans, i.e. on ideology, in-spite of the evidence.  

While I undoubtedly agree with the old saying "The pen is truly mightier than the sword!" - Marx and Engels' little 'Manifesto' is a perfect example - I also think that the pen will likely continue to lose its relevancy, especially as social-networks and news from 'friends' eclipse traditional forms of information dissemination, especially for external audiences, audiences out-side of the small though consolidated Party base.

Additionally, as we become more and more of a niche-society based on instantaneous information, soft-relationships and 'friends' will likely play more and more of a role in our daily quest for information.

Therefore, regardless of what is being said, as we move forward, it is more likely that the messenger, not the message, will be the first criteria when external audiences select information sources. So while ideology is still important, its level of importance is directly connected to the relational dynamic between the messenger and the recipient, which we should acknowledge, embrace and use to our advantage.

For example, in a world where institutions (churches, unions, block-clubs, etc.) have become less-and-less relevant we should ask: Do our words, ideas and slogans, our ideology, increasingly disseminated through non-traditional, non-institutional means, lend them-selves to institution building? I ask because, obviously we want to build our institution. If the answer is 'no' - if ideology in today's world does not lend itself to institution building - then we have to create other avenues that facilitate the types of relational dynamics that makes us the messenger of choice, and there-by build our institution.

Furthermore, it is evident from a wide variety of indicators that the Communist Party - like the labor movement generally, churches, and other seemingly permanent institutions - has been in a state of progressive-decline for many years. In fact, our organizational capacity and infrastructure, and the financial and human resources at our disposal, have been in a state of decline for at least 40 years. Our optimism, recent up-surge in grassroots activism and increased online membership, primarily due to new technology, should not obscure this fact. 

In short, our progressive-decline should not be in dispute. We should acknowledge our current modest growth within the context of this longer-term trajectory of decline, and discuss it honestly, especially among our members and leaders, as acknowledging facts will help us change and adapt to reality. We should acknowledge that we are in the process of re-building a democratic institution. Our work should honestly reflect this reality.

Furthermore, to say that we are in a state of progressive-decline isn't an attack on the Communist Party, its history or its leaders. It is an impersonal, objective, scientific assessment of our actual ability to service our members' needs - and the needs of the working class generally.

Directly related to this long-term trajectory of decline are questions of member services. Currently, our main service is ideological or educative, which provides a very limited range of options to a very limited range of potential members. In fact, I would argue that we are trying to provide a service that most people just don't want. Again, at least that is what the evidence indicates.

However, by re-balancing our organizational priorities from one based largely on ideology to one based equally on other types of member services, we can increase the range of options and there-by attract a larger pool of potential members.

As I wrote in "The organizational rubric," "We should not work under the illusion that large numbers of people will join or fund our organization for anything other than self-interest. In my opinion, we should embrace and acknowledge that people will join our organization, fund or volunteer for it, because it is in their self-interest to do so."

And "If self-interest is identified as a key reason for joining or funding our organization, it is easily a matter of deduction to assess whether-or-not we are living up to our part of the tacit member-to-organization relationship. In other words, we will be able to assess if we are in-fact getting the type of on-the-ground results that justify membership."

As an organization that is fighting for the welfare of the working class, providing a range of concrete, tangible member services and incentives that tap into a wide variety of self-interests should be a no-brainer, as people's lives cannot be improved in the abstract.

Historically, the Communist Party and its affiliated organizations have been very successful at providing member services and creating member incentives. Whether through immigrant fraternal organizations, mutual benefit societies, legal defense associations, continuing education collectives, relief kitchens, strike committees, social groups, dance and sport clubs, concerts, summer camps, child care centers or 'Friendship' vacation tours - just to name a few of the most obvious - the Communist Party has historically incentivized membership by providing services.

Some of these services were directly managed, funded and lead by the Communist Party and its various organizational and economic entities (on club, district and national levels); others were initiated, lead and given political direction by individual communists within allied organizations or transitional formations.

Most importantly though, these services not only benefited our members and the quality of their lives, they also benefited the Communist Party as an institution, its financial, political and organizational infrastructure.

Regardless, this fact cannot be disputed: The Communist Party has a proud tradition of providing services and incentives to membership. So what I am suggesting is not new to our history. Additionally - and I believe the overwhelming evidence supports this thesis - our longest periods of sustained membership growth were also periods when we had numerous incentives for membership, and provided numerous services.

 In short, there is a direct relationship between incentivizing membership, providing services and organizational growth, as there should be. However, understanding and acknowledging this complex relationship is necessary if we are to fully grasp our organizational self-interest.

For example, material benefits (services and incentives) wedded to membership creates a relational dynamic of mutual self-benefit - which is a good thing! In my opinion, the hallmark of any healthy relationship (personal or organizational) is mutual self-benefit, is reciprocity. Undoubtedly, we want to engage our members and would-be members (and coalition partners) in a way that not only benefits them, but also benefits us - the Communist Party.  

In fact, we should expect that our dues-paying members will want to engage in a reciprocal relationship with us. They value our work and want to see us succeed, just as they value themselves and want to succeed personally. Concomitantly, our organizational structures should facilitate success by incentivizing membership.

In my opinion, the incentivizing of membership can and will take many different forms. In fact, I believe it should take different forms that are reflective of our various local, regional and national capacities and infrastructures.

For example, in some Districts the Party can act as a clearing house that actively funnels activists and members into union jobs, as we should. In other Districts, the Party can act as a gateway to social service networks, shelters and pantries for families in need, as we should. In other Districts, the Party can provide continuing education opportunities that help people get their high school diploma or GED, as we should. And in other Districts, the Party can provide a safe place for children in troubled homes, as we should. Each of these activities - and others - provides a clear incentive to membership. 

Let me be clear: It isn't that we don't do these things. It's that we do these things hap-hazardly. It's that we lack a conscious approach to doing these things, an approach that makes us the messenger of choice and there-by alters our members' substantive relationships with their Communist Party. Simple, kind services very often have a physiological impact that builds identity. We should embrace and acknowledge this fact. Our goal should be to create identity defining group experiences.   

Of primary importance here is the creating of substantive relationships that build our institution.

Additionally, we should expect that our dues-paying members will want us to engage in a reciprocal relationship with our coalition partners, as reciprocity will help us grow financially, politically and organizationally, while strengthening the movement for social and economic justice.

Ideally, our institution (the Communist Party) would articulate a message, an ideological vision (which we currently do), and incentivize membership to attract dues-paying members (which we currently do not do), there-by creating a relational dynamic based on mutual self-benefit, based on reciprocity. We, in-return receive increased dues, ensuring our financial self-sustainability, and increased organizational capacity significant enough to enable our organization to impact - not just analyze - the political balance of power.

Obviously, our dues structure and payment expectations will have to be dramatically restructured and increased. Currently, in my opinion, our dues are so insignificant as to be almost meaningless; if we don't value ourselves no one else will.

Additionally, relational dynamics based on mutual self-benefit are an organizational model employed by all membership-based, dues-paying mass organizations - from the NAACP to the AARP, from unions to community organizations, from the Chamber of Commerce to the Small Business Roundtable, from Triple A to local community credit unions.

In other words, there is no reason why we can't duplicate successful models employed by a wide variety of mass organizations. If we hope to bring large-numbers of differing constituencies into our organization - because it is in our obvious organizational self-interest to grow and remain financially self-sustaining - we should create incentives for those constituencies to join.

Currently however, we do not speak in the language of membership 'advantage.' Our ideological dissemination is divorced from our organizational capacity, our actual, on-the-ground ability to deliver any material benefits, which is a huge disincentive to membership. Just as unions have what's called a 'union advantage' in wages, health care, pension and other benefits - advantages that incentivize membership - we should have a 'communist advantage' that provides material benefits to dues-paying members.

Simply put, our words, ideas and slogans (the People's World, Political Affairs, etc.) are generally designed to support and agitate non-members, not better the lives of dues-paying members. Arguably, we spend more time, energy and money educating and agitating non-members than we do servicing our dues-paying members, which raises a lot of questions regarding problems of resource allocation, and creates another disincentive to membership. We have to ask the question: Who wants to be a member of an organization that spends more of its resources on non-members than on dues-paying members?

Don't misunderstand me, I fully agree with and support the outward, internet-focused direction of our current ideological and educative work. For example, we are on track to have close to twenty-thousand Facebook 'friends' by the end of 2011, and about 200,000 regular, monthly People's World readers. These are accomplishments we should be very proud of. However, these accomplishments do not answer the question: What incentives are we creating to compel these 'friends' and readers to join our organization, pay-dues and engage regularly in our work? What incentives are we creating to compel these people to build our institution?

Additionally, in today's world, our over-reliance on ideology is organizationally short-sighted. It is a mistake we should remedy, especially as our growth in online members - after a huge financial investment and substantial increases in daily online ideological production - has not resulted in substantial dues increases or financial donations.

Furthermore, online members join our ranks intrigued and excited by what they read on our websites. Their perception of the Communist Party is usually romanticized; factors like youth, isolation and very little experience lend themselves to romantic notions of struggle. 

This is a sincere concern, and I think it is one of the reasons why so many new / online members join and then leave with-in a relatively short period of time. Their communist identity is wrapped-up in ideological symbols - symbols that rarely match their reality. And their membership expectation is one largely based on discussion of those same ideological subjects, not on building our institution.

The harsh reality of hard, unglamorous, thank-less work - be it for workers' rights to join a union, health care, candidate campaigns, stopping foreclosures, or coalition building, etc. - combined with a lack of member services creates a disincentive for pro-longed membership. It is too much work and too little reward.

Inevitably, this disincentive weeds-out everybody but the most ideologically committed, which is no way to build a mass organization.

Reconciling the contradiction between our stated desire to be a mass organization with our lack of material incentives for mass membership is something we need to come to terms with as soon as possible.

Put simply, if our goal is to build a broad-based, mass Communist Party capable of addressing the needs of differing constituencies then we should create incentives for those constituencies to join our organization. Ideology, while acutely important, is not enough, as it isn't the only reason why people join the Communist Party, nor should it be.

Concomitantly, if we hope to influence - not just analyze - the political balance of power (locally, nationally and internationally), then we shouldn't shy away from making long-overdue changes to long-held organizational practices and assumptions.

I think the practice and assumption is: If we produce it - articles, reports, newsletters, educationals, videos, conference calls, meetings, etc. - they will come. Unfortunately though, the evidence does not support this conclusion.

As I wrote above, more important than the message (in all its various forms), is the relational dynamic between the messenger and the recipient, and the clear understanding of what each expects from the other.

We can change the form of our interactions with members or would-be members as often as we like. However, the evidence suggests that changing the form of our interactions has not significantly changed the composition or size of our organization. That is because, it is the why of membership that needs to change, not the form of our interactions. In short, the reason why people choose to become communists, the substantive relationships, is what needs to be addressed. Incentivizing membership will help us address this why of membership.

As I wrote in "The organizational rubric," "we want to build a new membership and investor base of people who are invested in our success precisely because their success depends on our effectiveness," which would fundamentally change the reason why people join our organization; consequently, it would also likely change the type of people who join our organization - which would be a good thing!

Put simply, if our goal is to grow into a mass organization with hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members - people who engage reciprocally with us as an institution - then we should provide more than an educative service, as most people do not join an organization to be educated. They join because it makes their life better in concrete, tangible ways.

Additionally, we should not create additional hurdles to membership by asking people to give (dues, sustainers, time, energy, etc.), but not receive. It is the hallmark of an unhealthy relationship. It is counter intuitive; it goes against logic; it is unscientific. And it is unreasonable to expect hundreds-of-thousands of people to join our organization (and stay!) if they get no material benefit from their membership. It is not in their self-interest to do so. Additionally, as the history of red-baiting and anti-communism makes abundantly clear, membership usually brings with it career obstacles, family hardship and political isolation.

Furthermore, by creating material incentives for joining the Communist Party we provide a distinctive identity by-which we can differentiate ourselves from other ideological organizations, which we desperately need to do. Distinction and differentiation are absolutely necessary if we hope to grow in an increasingly niche-obsessed market of ideas. We should not underestimate the power of identity, especially when it is wedded to services that benefit people's lives here, today!

While, member incentives and services give constituents an organizational identity, it also gives them a reason to recruit their family, friends and co-workers, precisely because they want to share the benefits of membership with those they care about. They want to see their family, friends and co-workers succeed. We should help facilitate that success.

My point: Ideology cannot substitute for implementing a broad-range of long-term goal oriented organizational practices designed to build our local, national and international capacity and infrastructure. These practices should be results-based and incentivize membership. We need to provide material benefits and services to our dues-paying members, as they enable us to target differing constituencies and build constituent bases. Also, we need to put a premium on adaptability and flexibility; our bulls-eye should be to facilitate identity defining group expectations - the expectation that members will get a return on their investment.

Finally, results-based goals that incentivize membership and provide services are especially suited for peoples' organizations. Organizations with finite resources - all people's organizations, including ours - should be especially aware of results and services, as they do not have the time, money or resources to waste. Additionally, member services are especially important to those organizations that are responsive to and have an active and engaged membership base, a membership base that makes an investment and expects a return on their investment, which is the type of organization we need to be - if our real goal is to grow dramatically into a mass organization. Producing results and incentivizing membership will legitimize our organization to a broad public, a public that will want to 'buy-in' if they get something in return.

Conclusion

Above I asked: Do our practices and assumptions regarding Communist Party organization and the prominence of ideology work to create disincentives for new member recruitment and consolidation, and in the process hinder our political, organizational and financial capacity for change?

Obviously, I believe the answer is 'yes.' Furthermore, if we collectively do-not begin to address these long-held organizational practices and assumptions that create disincentives for membership we will not grow in a way that facilitates a mutually-beneficial relationship between our dues-paying members and their Communist Party.  

Undoubtedly, we have been trying to build the Communist Party in the same way for a long time; while the forms may have changed, the substance is very much the same. We over-rely on ideology, and under-rely on everything else.

We need to proactively adapt to better fit today's and tomorrow's projected organizational realities; we need to plan ahead and put time, money and resources into figuring out what we want our organizational reality to look like 5, 10, 20 years from now - if we are serious about growth. In short, it is up to us to define our organizational reality, and our efforts should be based equally on ideology, self-interest and incentivizing membership. 

As I wrote earlier, I've been in the Communist party all of my adult life, and for the entirety of that time our organizations' actual, dues-paying membership size has changed very little. Some argue that objective factors have hindered our long-term ability for sustained growth.

However, I don't agree with that assessment. I think we let ourselves (the leaders of the Communist Party) off the hook way too easily by ascribing our lack of sustained growth to objective conditions. I think it is lazy Marxism. I think our members deserve a better, more nuanced analysis. I think our members deserve more of us. They deserve results.   

If objective factors were the driving force in the 1930's and 40's, then why aren't we noticing the same dramatic growth in membership today, as objective factors are very similar? Could it be that our over-reliance on objective factors is wrong? Could it be that we aren't equipped to actually know what is objective? Could it be both? Could it be that we don't know as much about our history as we think we do?

For example, during the 1930's and 40's, during a time of unprecedented growth and activity, when we had hundreds-of-thousands of members our mass approaches serviced people's real-life needs. People got something tangible out of their membership at least that is what an objective assessment of the evidence indicates.

For example, when someone came to a class on Marxism, they got soup and bread too! They got warmth and shelter from the cold and rain! They made friends! And I'm willing to bet that those who came back did so for a multiplisity of reasons. Because of the soup and bread. Because of the shelter.  Because of the comradery, not just because of the ideology!

Their substantive relationship to the Party was altered or changed by the service we provided! We cannot be so naive as to ignore the service orientated reasons why people join organizations. 

I think an equally plausible reason - a reason supported by evidence - for our long-term progressive-decline is that we have forgotten one of the basic reasons for membership organizations to exist - to service their members' needs. This is why most people join organizations, any organization. As I wrote above, we used to service our members needs in multiple ways, and we did a damn good job of it!

In fact, I think, when the new histories are written about the Communist Party during its defining moments - when it represented hundreds-of-thousands of dues-paying members, when its membership size and influence directly impacted the political balance of power, when it was host to immigrant fraternal organizations, mutual benefit societies, legal defense associations, continuing education collectives, relief kitchens, strike committees, social groups, dance and sport clubs, concerts, summer camps, child care centers and 'Friendship' vacation tours - we will find that member services and material incentives played and equal, if not greater, role than Marxist Ideology.