On the Question of Allowing Factions in the Party.

I'd like to start by mentioning that I am referring to factions with in a party who's guiding system is Democratic Centralism. There are many sides to this argument and many differing reasons why one supports or does not support factions with in a party.


Most believe that factions within a party will only lead to an inevitable split within that party. There is no evidence to suggest that this would happen but there is no evidence to the contrary. I would like to take this subject from an objective stance. I would love to have comments on this post and see what others think on the subject.


One down side could be that important issues could cause a split or if a hot button issues is decided by only a few percentage like 55-45% on a vote it could cause anger and division among the party.


On the other hand, greater inner democracy could create a feeling of unity within the party and energize some members that would otherwise be down heartened with the bureaucracy of the normal democratic centralist party. I for one would enjoy a party where I could express my individual ideas behind closed doors with other members of my party that shared my same ideas. Then take those ideas to the central committee to be voted on at a congress. It would make me feel more empowered and give me a greater feeling of duty to the party.


Something that comes to mind when I think about a party that would allow multiple factions in it; is that with factions openly encouraged the party could grow larger. For example if a party let everyone in that adhered to any form of Marxist Leninist theory than everything from Leninist to Stalinist and Maoist could join the party. As a Maoist in this country at this time there is no party that truly represents my ideas as a Maoist. I would not and will not join a party that will not allow me to be openly Maoist and express my Maoist ideas and theories. I would join a party if I could openly propagate and advocate a Maoist line with in the party.


However I do not think this idea could work with all the communist tendencies, I do not see a world where Maoist and Trotskyist could be in the same party and peacefully exist. I think an attempt to do so would be a waste of time and resources.


I will touch a little more on this subject in an upcoming post that will be about "A Unified Communist Party of America."

Empty Rhetoric is Not What We Need!

I am noticing a trend. I see it with some groups more than with others. We have all heard the phrase "you're talking to big for your britches."


I was having a conversation that turned into a debate recently with a comrade about marching on Washington DC to demand a "stop to funding the Egyptian government." I was trying to debate him that this tactic has never worked and that the US government is not going to stop funding any of it's puppet governments just because the people take to the streets. It took me about ten minutes to realize that he was not debating me but rather just repeating democratic and the "they have to listen to us" rhetoric over and over again.


Just as a taste of what I mean (this was on a public site mind you) here are some clips of our discussion.

him- "Mubarak must step down now! Stop killing unarmed pro democracy protesters."(in reference to trying to get people to sign his petition found here. which is a petition 'telling' Obama to support democracy in Egypt.)

me-"when has a US president ever supported democracy in a nation he controls?"

him-"Only when the people in the U.S. stand up & demand it!"

me-"I don't think even then he (Obama) will care *persons name. The riot police is all you will get."

him-"The U.S. gives Mubarak 2Billion dollars a year, we are funding the ones killing the pro democracy protesters. Cut off funding, and demand the dictator step down."(I hope by now my point is clear that while I'm trying to discuss/debate he is using empty slogans with no way to make these things happen)

me-"No, I understand and agree with your rhetoric I'm just saying that Obama won't do it no matter what. His stake in having a Egyptian puppet is more important than what the people of the US (notoriously pacifist)say."

him-"Speak for yourself, but not all people in the U.S. are as cynical as you. Resist the War Machine! Solidarity with Egyptian Democracy Movement."

me-"yes, nothing but solidarity with the Egyptian people! But it's called realistic and dialects not cynical. I speaking from historical and current stand point. If you can get the Obama administration to tell the government to resign and he stops sending them money because of your movement then I will give you a personal apology."(and I will if they do)

him-"Our goal is to end the U.S. Imperialist War Machine's domination of the U.S. & much of the world. Remember the 60s? We gained social change, but not political change. We will continue the struggle for democracy in the U.S. The corporate media can't continue to ignore us. The U.S. peace & democracy movement is building. 131 Peace activists (mostly vets) were arrested in front of the White House last month & we will have many more in March. Join the revolution!"

me-"I wouldn't call it a revolution yet brother. People need to understand that we have no democracy before they will revolt but most people in the US still believe we have democracy."(I didn't have the heart to tell him that the conditions are way off for revolt.)



Most of the conversation went on this way and it is something that I have noticed has become sort of a trend. Many people on the left have traded dialects for slogans (liberal ones at that.) I fear that rhetoric has come to replace logic in our communist movement. It seems like most people think if they repeat "we are winning! we are winning!" that somehow with out advancing even a little bit that we are in fact winning. Is this correct? NO, further more it makes the movement as a whole look silly. I recall a time where an ISO and a SP-USA member sat there and went back and forth for two hours and all they were really saying was "we are the vanguard" "nope, we are the vanguard" and both thought they were right because they believed their own rhetoric. But to someone unfamiliar with the movement they would probably roll their eyes and say something along the lines of "wow why are communist so full of themselves?"


So before we just go out yelling slogans at people instead of explaining ourselves, we need to ask ourselves: "Is what we are putting forward realistic?" "Is it achievable?" "If it is possible to attain this goal then what is the correct path to move the goal forward to a reality?" and most importantly; "how do the people want to carry this forward" and "Is this what is best for the people?" Because yes I have noticed that sometimes groups will do opportunistic campaigns to gain a few members even when if the campaign had succeeded that it would have been against the masses well being.


The masses well being should always be our number one driving force. Empty rhetoric and worthless slogans are not going to liberate the masses on it's own.


Logic shall be our only guiding light!



Written by: Dustin Slagle

What are the differences between the fronts and when are they applicable?

There are different kinds of fronts that are created for different reasons in different places. Different situations and conditions in different places call for a formation of different fronts.



This post will be mainly discussing the two fronts that communist would be dealing with in different situations. The United Front and the Popular Front.



The idea of the United Front is thought to have originated from the Comintern who declared in their 1921 congress that a united front is "an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”



The Popular Front was created to fight fascism and is more broad than the United Front, allowing liberal and bourgeois elements to join the front in order to fight a common enemy. The Popular Front was highly criticized by Leon Trotsky because he claimed that only United Fronts could be progressive and that Communist collaborating with liberal elements was betrayal of the working class. Big words from a man who was a liberal class champion before the Bolsheviks made it clear that they would be the winning force and Trotsky party jumped opportunistically again as it is explained here (1). And better explained here by Lenin (2).



I see a popular front as essential when fighting a imperialist army or trying to overthrow an oppressive dictator etc. For those who are opposed to popular fronts out right; I'd like to point out two great examples of why and when the Popular Front is needed.



One historical example would be in China when the Japanese invaded in 1937. Sometimes the coalition is referred to as a United Front, but seeing as there were pro-capitalist elements it was technically a Popular Front. If the communist and the Nationalist forces had never coupled with some Soviet volunteers and war lords to create a Popular Front then the Japanese would have easily smashed all forces separately. All the different groups knew that they had to join their forces together to defeat Japanese imperialism. China today would be either a US or Japanese colony if it wasn't for the Popular Front.



But China also teaches us another very important lesson when it comes to any kind of Front. The need to keep your ranks and stay an organization within the front. After the Japanese were defeated the civil war continued but it was keeping their ranks and their party together that allowed the communist to rise as the main power in China (after the long march the communist party gained a lot of respect from the people of China and after they showed their strength in the war against imperial Japan the communist were seen by the people as the party of and by the people) after defeating the Nationalist KMT.



A more recent example would be the situation in Palestine. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a organization that is geared towards nothing less than the liberation and a free state of Palestine. They have joined with many forces through the years to fight the oppressive and imperialist puppet state of Israel. If it wasn't for the formation of these Popular Fronts joining their resources and armies together to fight the Israeli army then the Israeli's would have invaded and destroyed Palestine a long time ago. If they would have stayed Utopian purest like most Trotskyist would say they should have done and only formed United Fronts and only allowed communist, anarchist and socialist elements join then the Israeli Army would have played simple divide and conquer and the Palestinian people would be mostly extinct today.



Now that we have discussed why and when it is needed to create Popular Fronts let's talk about why and when it is needed to build a United Front.



The conditions arise only after the contradiction is primarily between the masses (poor and proletarian peasants and the working class) and the bourgeois (capitalist class, national bourgeois and petty bourgeoisie). A United Front is created when communist and other working class groups (anarchist, and other revolutionary working class movements) need to join forces to fight conservative and/or liberal elements. One example we can see is the United front between the ELN and FARC-EP. The two left-wing guerrilla armies have a common enemy in the neo-liberal government and have joined forces to combat the Colombian government.



Mexico is a place that could use a United Front, the EPR had suggested such a United Front with the EZLN but in a amazing betrayal of the Mexican people the EZLN refused the alliance. This keeps both groups smaller and less able to overthrow or even combat the current Mexican government. If these groups were to create a United Front then there would be a real possibility of destroying the current government.



To put it simply; different times call for different measures. It is always important to recognize the current contradictions in your nation and to organize and act accordingly to fix the current contradiction. If your nation is being oppressed or occupied then it may be needed to create and organize a Popular Front. If the main contradiction is between the people and the government and/or between the working class and bourgeois classes then you may need to create and organize a United Front.


Written by: Dustin Slagle

(1) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch04.htm#4._

(2) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm

The Point of Polemics.

A polemic is a critique of a organization, groups, person, idea, tendency etc. It was brought to my attention lately by a leftist pal of mine that I am not a good communist because I don't help the local reformist and liberal class collaborators who pose as communist (not his words, but mine). I didn't think much of it at first because he is a "do something, anything-ist" but I think that he had a point in there somewhere. That even by not supporting a reformist party I am doing nothing because I don't participate in many local activities. While I do participate in some local activities, I try to keep to little circles who I think have potential or to participate in militant activities. I am not interested in how many news papers I can sell at a rally, but rather I am interested in meeting people and hearing of their thoughts and experiences. And through discussion trying to reshape their ideas to be more communist and create more awareness among the people, person by person.



While I must confess that to some leftist this does not fall into their category of "doing something" but I have had great success with this strategy. It is also more inspiring and energizing for me to do this than to go to a leftist event and hearing liberal and reactionary ideas being regurgitated as fast as they can be re-consumed by the ORGs followers.



It is no secret that others in my area read this blog. The reason why I write polemics about these groups and people (most polemics I write are about multiple ORGS and many of them are taken out of context) is because they have many incorrect theories, they are calling themselves revolutionaries while championing reformism and liberalism under the guise of workers power. They are using other leftist to further their goals and have personally told me that there will come a day when they have to turn their backs on the other groups (that's called opportunism). I write polemics because many groups have become theoretically ignorant and use dogmatism as their guiding light.



Polemics are important in making groups and people better themselves. If you read a polemic about your group or about your ideas and you brush it off for any reason than you may be a dogmatic follower. If you discredit anything that was said or written by Mao simply because it was written or said by Mao than you are dogmatic and thus anti-dialects. Same goes for other people if you discredit everything Stalin said because it was Stalin who said it, if you discredit everything Trots say just because they are trots than you are a dogmatic person. This is not to say that you can't disagree with all of someones thoughts and ideas. But disagree because you've read it and don't just refute because of who wrote it. I don't agree with 99% of what Trotsky wrote. But it is because I think he wrote things from a purest and Utopian view point and not just because it was Trotsky who wrote it.



If polemics scare you as an ORG than you probably need to reevaluate yourself as an ORG. Only great people and groups use a good polemic to better themselves. Only cowards who are theoretically bankrupt and dogmatic cry when a polemic is written about them. A polemic is a good place to start doing some self criticism and theoretical advancement.



Written by; Dustin Slagle

Why Create New Communist ORG's if There Are Already Existing Ones?

I wanted to write this post to answer the simple question of: "Why are people creating new communist organizations instead of joining the existing ones?" This is a good question for people new to the movement here in the states to ask. When I first walked onto the socialist scene I had a problem understanding why there were so many different groups when every one believed in a general idea (socialism).



I soon was to be crushed when I found out what a fractured and broken socialist movement we had here in the US. I was further crushed when I later learned that most groups in the US are fakes and wish to do nothing more than use reformism to replace one ruler with another under a false banner of socialism or the false claim of "a party run by the working class". Then there are the parties who only seem to want to write polemics about other groups and do nothing else. Some parties exist only for opportunist reasons when they could easily join with other groups that share their same platform and politics but they do not merge because that would mean sharing money, resources, and membership.



There is actually a good reason why new ORGs emerge and if the sixties are any implication then we should see a growth in communist recruitment into the different parties. The creation of new parties is a sign that the existing parties are out dated and are being ineffective in doing mass work. This is the reason why we see groups such as the Kasama project, the LLCO and a few other groups emerging from the darkness. The founders of these groups don't see protesting and signing petitions as a way to build and carry through a revolution. They know that new and original theory's are needed to carry the communist movement forward. They are trying to fill a void by carrying communist slogans and moving the cause forward as a whole.



I think we should embrace this new outbreak of new groups here in the united states. It is obvious all the old parties and most of the "new" trot parties are set in their ways and are ineffective and outdated. Maybe the communist movement needs a revolution inside the communist movement itself?

Is 'fighting back' counter productive?

In the past and in the present whenever there are any cuts made to the education budget or cuts to government jobs you will find socialist in the streets protesting to "fight back" against the cuts. But after a hundred or so years, we as a movement in the United States need to sit back and think to ourselves "is this really working for us? is this really productive to our cause? is this really raising consciousness among workers? Or is this showing the average US citizen that reforism works?"



Is fighting back against the cuts working for us? (By 'us' meaning communist orgs and groups) There are a lot of ways to approach this question and many more ways to answer it. The short answer is no. When we do 'fight back' we do not gain members nor does it raise awareness to real communist theories and ideas, or even radical ideas for a matter of fact. Some say "well if we advance communist slogans and try to organize as communist than no one will show up to the protest" Well to that I would say: "What is the point of being a communist organizer if you never organize for communism?" Some people feel like if other people are not organizing a group of people to yell at the US government for whatever reason they can find then they are bad communist and "arm chair revolutionaries". But I do not see these people who organize liberals into protesting as any more revolutionary than actual arm chair revolutionaries. In fact these organizers do little but reassure liberals that reformism works and that there is no need to revolt against the current capitalist system. Why would liberals radicalize if they think it is possible to reform capitalism from the inside or outside? which we all know is not possible.



Is this productive for the communist cause? While getting into the streets may cause direct contact with other people it actually draws people away from revolutionary socialism. As said above it only leads people to believe that reformism is possible and thus kills the idea of the need for revolution in the minds of the people. Although getting into the streets along with other people who are screaming can be inspirational to the communist but this inspiration is founded on false grounds because the bulk of the people around you are not in any way revolutionary. It would actually be better for the cause if we took anti-reformist stances and didn't participate in the organizing of liberals into shout squads. If the woman of this nation knew what the communist did for her as far as woman rights goes, if the average worker knew what communist have gone through to win him/her their workers rights then maybe 'communist' wouldn't be such a bad work. If workers knew what the world would look like without the 'reds' before us that organized so hard for their minimum wage and workers rights then they would be flocking to our revolutionary cause. But some socialist's constant complacency to just organize and move liberals in the streets in the name of "fight the power" for mere reforms are keeping us at the same numbers in memberships. Yes we know some of the protester based orgs are growing right now but as soon as it comes time to revolt these same orgs that are now growing would lose most of their membership. But what else should these orgs actually expect? When you advance liberal slogans you attract a liberal following and liberals will always chose flight before revolt. If these groups advanced communist slogans they would attract communist and maybe even convert a few fence sitting liberals over to our side.



Is this type of campaigning raising workers consciousness? Well let us be serious and completely honest about this. The average American worker does not care about politics and are especially xenophobic to anything new or different. Doing a 'fight back' campaign mainly reaches out to people who work for the government. At first you want to think 'well if they work for the government, and the government is trying to fire them and they see us trying to fight for their jobs won't they be more open to our ideas?' Not really, they may be thankful but we must remember that most socialist groups do these campaigns behind their liberal front groups so while the group may get new supporters and members for its front group these campaigns do little to forward the cause and ideas of communism.



I think I answered the question already to "is this showing the average US citizen that reforism works?" which the answer would be yes.



It is worth mentioning that while we should not use our communist groups to attempt to achieve reformism. It is important that we as individuals participate in trying to get lower tuition fees for collage and trying to stop charter schools from taking over public school buildings. We as individuals before being communist can not stand aside while kids parents are paying top dollar for a bottom tier education. Even though today the schools are capitalist and teach capitalism because education is in the hands of the capitalist. We communist must ensure that the children can read and write. We cannot control education and we cannot educate the masses into revolution or even educate them to have revolutionary ideas because as it was said "education in today's world is capitalist education." (1) So if education of the masses to revolution is not possible then we must support our children getting the best education they can get. It will just be up to us as individuals to teach our kids correct history.



Now here are some things Ive had said to me regarding my stance on these issues. "We should stay where the masses are. Marxist don't create their own groups separate of the masses." Lenin did and it worked out well for him. This sentence makes me think "well then go join the democrats" the same people who say that about not separating from the masses turn around and attack the CP-USA line for joining the democrats but they only do it for opportunistic reasons because they use the rhetoric that supports this move seeing as that is where the majority of the working class are in this country, with the democrats. So creating fight back campaigns does not keep you with the masses but just a few workers who might lose their job.



Ive heard "well, protesting and fighting back is a way to stay in 'the struggle' and to be a leader in the struggle". First off it should be clear that there is little to no 'struggle' happening in the US at the moment. Once again when I hear "leader in the struggle" I go right back to the liberal problem. Liberals don't struggle they complain and gripe then give up. Ive heard leadership in a socialist party say "well we didn't win and they made the cuts anyway but we got some new members out of the deal so it was worth it" that's a direct quote.



Fighting back doesn't help "the struggle" for socialism, it doesn't raise awareness. It just gives socialist something to do in their free time and then they are inspired by the protest which gives them a false hope which keeps them in the reformism circle. Fight back campaigns help prop up this capitalist system. As Ive explained; doing fight back campaigns is counter-productive because it gives the outsiders the idea that reformism can fix the system when any real revolutionary can tell you that the only thing that can fix this messed up imperialist, racist, capitalist system is a proletarian revolution by putting guns and "politics in command".


Say no to reformism!

When a reformist group posing as revolutionaries ask you to join, JUST SAY NO!

Let the system fall and we communist will pick up the pieces!

They say cut backs? We say wait til the people are pissed and arm them!



Written by: Dustin Slagle

*this article is about campaigns aiming to "fight back" against budget cuts and should not be viewed as and was not a polemic about FRSO (FB)

Are we communist lying to the working class?

I'm going to take the liberty of guessing that if you are reading this on a computer that you probably do not live in conditions the same as you see here on this photo. In fact there is a good chance you do not even know anyone who lives in these conditions.



In this post I would like to discuss some things that the "communist"/socialist parties of the US promise the working class and if these promises are realistic or not.



First of all it is important to point out that it would depend on if there was a world revolution or simply a revolution here in the United States for the purpose of building socialism to achieve communism. Because that would create two very different scenarios.



We must stop telling the US worker about how horribly he/she has it in the world. Almost 99% of US Americans live above the world poverty line. In fact the government had to create a different poverty line specifically for our country. In the rest of the world if you live off of less than one dollar a day then you are in poverty according to UNICEF. Now in the US (according to our government) people living under 7 dollars a day are considered to be living in poverty. That means there are more than one billion five hundred million people in extreme poverty in the world (people living on less than one dollar a day). That is more than five times the population of the US. Most panhandlers get more than a dollar a day in this country. So it is very incorrect to tell anyone making thirty thousand dollars a year that they are bad off.



If there was a REAL international communist revolution the living standards in the US would actually go down. I mean we would have free health care, free education, nutrition rations for the poor to ensure malnutrition was wiped out, a right to work. But a lot of the little extra things that we are used to would have to stop in order to serve the greater masses of the earth. There are almost seven billion people in this world. Out of that seven billion the USA only has around three hundred and six million people and the US consumes 1/3 of the worlds resources. Now do the math. Three hundred million is not one third of the worlds population, there for if we had a egalitarian world socialist economy there is no way that the people in the US could keep up their current living standards with out keeping another part of the world under exploitation.



One thing that US socialist parties like to do is attack budget cuts when the government cuts their budget from education or public jobs etc. Which is good and understandable seeing as those government jobs are some peoples livelihoods and indeed our children's education is the most important thing after people not starving. But here is the problem; when the US government and state governments across the nation announced huge job cuts for public works the socialist parties were in an uproar and attacked the US government furiously calling out "Hands off public workers!" and "fight back against the budget cuts!". Which I would like to say again makes sense and this was correct in the most part to carry these slogans.



However we quickly see where these parties hearts lye when Cuba announced that it planned to cut almost one million jobs over the next couple of years (some parties only highlighted half a million scheduled this year and left out the rest). That is almost 1/11 of their entire work force in that nation. Go divide the US population into 1/11 and see how many people that would be getting laid off. Yet many "communist" parties simply brushed it off as necessary to keep the economy from falling. They seemed to miss (on purpose) the part where Raul said he planned on opening up the market for investors and private businesses. There was little critique put out by any party with any political sway in this country. This is simply a case of "four legs good, two legs better" when a capitalist government cuts jobs it is a "crime against the working class" but when a country that the "socialist" parties support it is "necessary" in "preserving socialism on the island". So why is it okay for Cuba to make job cuts on a huge scale? And why is it not being called a "attack on the working class"?



It is a simple answer; do as we say, not as we do. Why should the working class in the US believe that the socialist parties would seriously make "a right to a job" a constitutional amendment? When they support the job cuts in Cuba even if they do say it is to "preserve socialism". I once had a "socialist" say to me that "a right to a job, free education, and free health care are not necessarily a necessity in a nation being socialist/building socialism" this was what was said during a conversation about rather or not China was still socialist and this was the reason he gave for why he still sees China as socialist. And this was a man in a power position with in a larger socialist party.



I guess what I am trying to say is that it is ultra confusing to an average person when a group supports one nations right to budget cuts but calls another nations budget cuts "an attack on the working class". And these people are correct to be confused, especially when a group is claiming to be internationalist yet constantly spouts tankie slogans and is constantly taking tankie stances. It is anti-dialects to simply support anything and everything waving a red flag and to be an apologist for anything claiming to be socialist or anti-imperialist. Some times anti-imperialist end up support social imperialist in the name of anti-imperialism.

Why should the people of the United States of America want a socialist society if we can not iron clad promise them that we will deliver what a capitalist country can't? Isn't one of our most rallied around slogans "People before profit"? Then I say it is only correct to attack the Cuban state and the Chinese state for their putting profits over the peoples needs. Although obviously Cuba still does a much better job than China at this seeing as they still have their nutritional food rations that have helped eliminate childhood and adult malnutrition on the tiny impoverished island nation. Also they have many great peoples program's in Cuba and this post should not be seen as an attack on Cuba seeing as there are indeed many progressive things about Cuba. I'm simply using Cuba to point out the tankie politics of some socialist parties.



Another thing that I have personally seen turn people off of politics in the US is the call for revolution. Now it is not the call for revolution that turns people off of socialism it is the contrary. Most people are draw to the call of revolution. But they shortly after joining a group become disillusioned with the socialist movement because parties in the US have hijacked the word revolution to mean whatever they want it to. It used to mean something to be a revolutionary socialist, simply that you believed in revolution to overthrow the capitalist/feudal/colonial government to be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now every group claiming to be socialist is "revolutionary" even while their platforms and actions are no more than that of a simple reformist.



It may break a lot of socialist hearts to hear this but participating in elections, calling for the formation of a labor party, carrying liberal slogans, creating front groups that carry forward liberal agendas, selling news papers (training paper boys), protesting, asking reactionary unions to split with the democrats, all these things are not and do not make a group revolutionary. They are lying to the masses and are as one man put it so well; "paper tigers". Carrying liberal slogans means that when it is time to revolt for workers democracy that the few communist will rush forward guns in hand and all the liberals they attracted with their parties liberal slogans will sit around in a circle singing "coumbia my lord coumbiaa" while the communist are gunned down.



To groups like that we should say "If you want to carry liberal slogans then join the liberals and do not waste the masses time". If you are a communist group or are claiming to be one, don't be worried that no one will pick up your slogan. It is better that a few pick up your correct communist slogan than it is for many to pick up your misleading liberal slogan. As Lenin said "better fewer, but better" meaning it is better to have a good few than it is to have a shitty lot. It is also better and a communist duty to be truthful and strait forward with the masses and not be misleading.


Stop carrying liberal slogans!

Struggle with in your group to put a stop to liberal slogans and liberalism as a whole.

Stop lying to the people you are trying to recruit!

Communist must carry communist slogans and put "politics in command!"



Written by; Dustin Slagle

US Communist Parties and Internationalism.

The definition of internationalism is easy. It can be summed up in "Workers of the world unite!". At its basic meaning internationalist means someone who see's all peoples struggles in the world are one in the same. They aim to build a world without borders where all people from all the nations are equal and united. But that is what an internationalist wants as the end result but what does a internationalist do and how do they act in today's world?



First of all let me be clear that while there are individuals who are internationalist within "communist" groups within the United States there are few actual internationalist groups. I will tip my hat to the FRSO as they have proven to be true internationalist by helping the people of less fortunate nations. Since there is currently an on going trail against some of its members for alleged ties to certain groups I will not comment further but recognize their true commitment to internationalism. Also groups like the IWW and the RSU are true internationalist because instead of simply talking about international situations they sent material supplies to Cuba, Palestine etc



Some groups claim they are internationalist simply because they have different party branches in different countries. This alone does not make a group internationalist. Writing articles in a parties news paper about things happening in other countries also does not count as being an internationalist.



For example, how can a groups here claim to be internationalist when they constantly fight for only the betterment of conditions in this nation? A few groups advocate for a 30 hour work week with out a decreasing wage. And while I admit that would be nice how can they call themselves internationalist? They advocate for better pay in the USA while not giving any material aid or real support to less fortunate nations? Other than offering "solidarity" (usually for opportunist reasons) and having liberal slogans such as "hands off _____" or "out of ____ now!" very few groups in the US are really doing anything to help the global proletariat.



The international situation outside of the US and most other imperialist nations is one of great poverty and hunger and hardships. No one in the US has an excuse to be complaining of their living situation if they are not sending any kind of material aid to less fortunate peoples around the world. Organizers can help train people online in the poorer nations so that they can train people in their own country. People are a lot more likely to rebel in a third world nation then they are in a country like India or Nigeria etc etc where there are larger wealth gaps than here in the states. More than 300 million people in India live on less than 0.80 cents a day. We communist should be trying to help people in these countries who's living conditions are mostly beyond our comprehension not trying to make our lives more comfy so we can have more free time.



I have decided that I personally will not carry any slogans calling for a better life here in the US until the proletarian of the world holds and average income of 10-15 thousand dollars a year. I think it is selfish to demand a better life when people are starving because they can not afford food. The average American has a car, a computer, heat, AC, running clean water and hot water. The average person in the world has maybe one of these things. How bad do we really have it compared to the rest of the world?