The Schizophrenic American Left and Their Annoyingly Bleeding Heart Papers.

One of the best ways to advance an issue or to accomplish something that surrounds a certain issue is to stay on topic and keep the issue in the mouths of the people. That is to say that you need focus on a issue to keep it popular and stick to it. Anyone who has a facebook account can tell just how ADHD the left is in the US. One day we are attacking the police for the murder of Oscar Grant and as soon as another hot issue comes out the left opportunistically raises that issue as their own and then abandon it as soon as the next hot issue comes out.


I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.


Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.


We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).


This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.


BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!

What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.


This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.


No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.


I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.


What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.


Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.


bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .


In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .


Dustin Slagle





(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html

(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615

The Communist Movement Needs a Revolution Within the Movement Itself!

It is my belief after having many discussions about a possible boycott of the upcoming national elections in the USA that the left in our nation has for the most part taken a turn to the right and is too thick with un-critical, dogmatic reformist.


The only non-reformist argument I've heard is the dogmatic quoting of Lenin's "Left-wing communism an infantile disorder". Which would make sense if there was any non-capitalist or a non-imperialist parties to run in to have our voice heard in like the parties that Lenin refers to in this writing. The nations that Lenin addresses in this writing are nations that had social democrat parties that the CP's could run in to have their voices heard and to show that reformism is a dead end and can not work to over throw a capitalist government. He wasn't pointing out that reformism works.


Here in the USA we have no party to run in to give a communist voice in. The creation of a Labor Party or a SD party in the USA would not even give us the chance to voice our communist voice as we have seen in England, entryism does not give us a voice in a pro-imperialist pro-capitalist party. And any SD party in the US would still be more of a right-wing SD than the ones that Lenin describes in his writing. This old worn out tactic has been proven to be the wrong tactic over and over again in history. There is a difference between entyism and participating in bourgeois parliamentary elections to discredit them. In the USA it is not possible to discredit the capitalist government by participating with the capitalist/imperialist parties. It is also a waste of resources to run your own candidate and silly to do it "to raise awareness to socialism" as it was correctly said; you can't educate communism in a nation where the capitalist own the schools and news that teach and propagate capitalism.


Still some people parading as dialect materialist would rather place their fingers in their ears and say "boycotting is ultra-leftism" as loud and as fast as they can so that they do not have to listen to something other than what Lenin proposed back almost one hundred years ago. The fact of the situation is that we have a bunch of fake communist claiming to be dialect materialist revolutionaries when in fact they are nothing more than dogmatic revisionist-reformist. So why would they parade around calling themselves revolutionary? Because revisionist is a bad word and reformist means you believe you can change the capitalist system from the inside a little bit at a time. Which means that participating in the capitalist-bourgeois government is a legitimate form of struggle. Of course this is false and the grossest form of revisionism and is playing traitor against the working class. Logic is a communists only true guiding light!


I believe that a broad boycott campaign supported by Socialist, communist, anarcho's, and even progressive liberal's would see less than 50% of the population vote in the presidential election and only about 32% in the mid-term elections would show how phony the bourgeois elections here in the US really are.


I think that the communist movement as a whole has for the most part shifted to the right. I think people like me who are revolutionary communist, who believes that a violent overthrow of the government is the only way to achieve socialism are a dying bread. That is because of the comfort that communist enjoy when playing entryism. It is easier to participate with your enemy than it is to fight them and I think this comfort has cost the movement dearly. It has lead to people marching around proclaiming themselves revolutionaries even though the most advanced idea they have is to lay in bed with their enemies. This is why I call for a revolution within the communist movement itself, a political revolution if you will. It is needed to shift the communist movement back over to the left. We need to break the Khrushchev line of "peaceful co-existence" and smash it in to unrecognizable size. It must be destroyed for the sake of our movement and for the sake of our future.


Revolution is not a joke, it "is not a tea party". Revolution means that there is a conflict in which one group violently kicks out the old rulers. It is not peaceful it does not happen in elections even in Venezuela there was a coup before the election and look how long it has taken to reach being progressive and they are still not officially in socialist construction though they are working for it. Since I have already mentioned Venezuela I would like to point out that the current situation there would be a good time for communist to play entryism to give communism a voice seeing as it would be silly to oppose a popular socialist government with a socialist opposition force.


Cuba, Laos, China, Vietnam, and Belarus would be other examples of nations where entryism would be the correct path. Even in nations that have progressive SD's or left wing coalitions like Sweden it would be correct to play entryism as a way to get a communist voice in parliament as Lenin stated. But in bourgeois democracies it is fullish to use elections as your main tactic to bring around the socialist transformation of society. In places like the US there are no progressive parties worth participating in that having any power so I motion that there is only one real alternative to playing entryism, and that is to boycott the elections!




Written by; Dustin Slagle

The Chance and Need to Boycott the Election Process

This blog post and general idea was pulled/inspired from a blog posted by a supporter of the RCP-PCR here.


First I think it is important to point out that only about half to fifty five percent of the nations registered voters vote in the presidential elections. While only 37% of people that are legally able to vote participate in the midterm elections (1).


Considering that almost 45% of this nation does not vote in the biggest election in this nation I think that is a good sign that the average American is fed up with the US government. Further more I would place a bet that if we got all third parties to boycott the elections that the turn out would be lower that 50% for the presidential election.


The fact that 63% of the US population (that is of age to vote) does not vote in the mid term elections tells us a few things;


1) That the election process is unappealing to the masses in the US. If the people really thought elections were a real way to create change then they would participate more in local elections because that is where your votes have the most effect.


2) That people who wish to play entryism are wrong when they claim their correctness by quoting Lenin saying; "we don't separate ourselves from the mass working class organs". The fact that over 60% of the people in the US do not vote proves them wrong that the election system is a gateway to the masses. Not to mention that by participating with a current, or wanting to create a new imperial-capitalist party to take over an established one, you are still participating in imperialist bourgeois democracy and have no right to claim you represent revolutionary politics.


3) That a boycott could actually motivate more people for your cause than getting the "other" vote could. With a boycott we could measure the amount of support the government really enjoys from the masses. If we boycotted the presidential election and the percentage of people who vote dropped bellow 50% we could declare the election a victory. If we called a boycott and only 45% or less voted than we could make a legitimate claim that the US government does not enjoy popular support.


If someone really wants to know why there is little to no revolutionary consciousness in the US we must first look to the majority of the "socialist" groups in the US. How are the people in the US suppose to develop a revolutionary mid set when all the groups who claim to be revolutionary support nothing but reformist tactics and attack any groups calling for real revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution while denouncing revolution and participating in the imperialist elections anything but reformist and social-democrat-esk?


I fear that most groups in the US are fake paper tigers. They use the call "revolution" for opportunist reasons only. But in reality they support this imperialist-capitalist system by organizing and participating within it. These groups help the capitalist system by legitimizing it by trying to reform from within rather than destroying it from without or even by just not participating in the elections. By participating the legitimize the bourgeois democratic process. This obviously sends the wrong message to the most important group coming into the socialist circles, and that is the young people. The number of young people who say things like "we are real revolutionary socialist" followed directly by "wanna buy our paper or a book or some stickers or pins, how about a donation, vote for this person" makes me so sick to my stomach. Specially when you see these people wearing Che shirts and hear them quoting Lenin, Che, Marx yet then tell me how ultra-left I am for advocating for a uprising lead by the working class. Maybe the left is taking a turn to the right?


I think it is a no brainer that any revolutionary working class group should not be participating in elections while imperialist-capitalist is the only possible out come. We need to be providing an alternative ideology to this fake bourgeois democracy. Not giving the fake illusion that the elections give us any real chance at creating change. Boycotting an election may not be in itself revolutionary but it is the correct tactic for any group claiming we need a new system. Also for reasons already pointed out above a boycott would show the true number of supporters the US government has and would expose the real number of possible revolutionaries.



Written by: Dustin Slagle


(1) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html (their source is the turnout for elections sided with population of people 18 and older)

The Reason Why Wisconsin Won't Lead to a Revolution.

People who are familiar with the left/socialist movement here in the United States know that every time a huge protest happens or a school building is occupied by students that the left will start screaming "the revolution is coming" or "this could be the start of the revolution" and "see the people in the United States are class conscious/revolutionary."



The event we see happening in Wisconsin is very important to pay close attention to. What we see happening is a right wing tea party supported governor who is a champion of corporate American billionaires trying to attack the unions right to collectively bargain. The governor is doing this to gain more support from the upper capitalist class (millionaires and billionaires) for making it easier for corporations to make more profits by paying their employees shitty wages, and the employees not having the legal right to demand higher wages.



It should be noted that this is the second attack on public workers, all in the name of "needing to cut the budget." The first cuts that were proposed to public workers were actually agreed to by the public workers and their unions according to MSNBC tv(1). But these second cuts will do more than make collective bargaining illegal it will also force public workers to pay double for their health care and force the workers to contribute 5.8% of their checks to their pension(2).



It is very important to support the unions and their right to collectively bargain. Even though a lot of unions in the US are reactionary and often side with the bosses before they would call for a strike. They can in some instances be the last line of defense for workers rights. So this post should not be seen as a attempt to stand against the Wisconsin workers.



I do want to touch on the claim that somehow the protest in Wisconsin means workers "do understand politics and are the first to engage in mass political activity." And that somehow workers trying to keep their jobs in Wisconsin is a sign that workers are trying to rise up and defeat the ruling and other bourgeois classes. Many populist socialist have made bolder claims that somehow all people who go to work and get a wage for their labor are working class(3). So by that claim I guess people making 300,000 dollars a year and millionaire CEO's who get paid by the hour are working class as well.



The truth of the situation is that probably 70% or more of those protester are pro-capitalism and they are just trying to keep their jobs. They are not there to do anything other than fight for their right to a fair job. This situation does not mean workers in the US are revolutionary or class conscious and as the link above falsely claims that US workers make common cause with workers in other countries. I would tell readers to go read any Yahoo news article, youtube, etc etc go read the comments about videos/articles about other countries. These comments are left by average everyday Americans and you will see that 70-30% are reactionary, xenophobic, and racist and ignorant, these are the real average US citizens. The people in left circles are advanced and are indeed not most of those things, but to claim the majority of Americans are revolutionary and not backwards is to lie to the people you're talking to.



Every time some bit of disorder happens does not mean "the revolution is here!" Here is what will probably happen; one of two things will happen. The Governor will win and the unions will be busted and the workers will be pissed off but will go back home eventually and start looking for a new job so their family doesn't starve but no revolt will happen and people in other states won't stand up with the workers (after all they have jobs and families to feed). Or the unions will win and everyone will cheer than go home and celebrate. But neither will lead to a revolution or even a radicalization of workers in the US. I really wish it wasn't true and I wish this would spark the prairie fire but it just won't happen brothers and sisters the conditions just aren't right at the moment.



If every time the left claimed revolution was about to happen then we would have around 3-6 revolutions every year. But what is most important is that we support the union in their struggle and encourage them to call for a general strike as the WIL (Workers International League) and the SA (Socialist Alternative) have advocated for. The people and the people alone will be the driving force.


Support a general strike in Wisconsin and Ohio!

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

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?

The Need to Combat Liberalism in the US!

Brothers and sisters the left wing and the communist/socialist movement in the US has been hijacked by liberals and liberal class collaborators!


In my opinion there is a huge reason why there is no strong communist movement in the states. It is because most of the parties and ORGs have adapted tailism as their main ideology. Meaning most parties or ORGs simply tail the liberal anti-war movements or use liberal slogans to gain support. And some groups even create liberal fronts for a certain subject or movement and do not use their fronts to create an opportunity to advocate for socialism. This tailism has been going on since the 60's (maybe earlier) and has proven to be an incorrect method of building a real movement.






As this picture says, the reason people are STILL protesting is because protesting doesn't work. Protesting as a tactic to "fight the power" or "fight the man" is a pacifist joke and the fact that the socialist groups in the US have bought into this crap is nothing less than a crime against the people. The masses need us to be working for them and leading them forward. Not standing on the streets with a bunch of pacifist liberals yelling their liberal slogans. The protesting activist circles are not the masses nor are they revolutionary. Why are these socialist wasting their time on reformist, pacifist liberals? I don't know the answer but if someone does then please let me know.



It is important to fight liberalism in our country because liberal slogans and the liberal activist circle has been the death of our movement. Of course like Ive mentioned in previous post it will take some converting of liberals in this country in order to build a communist movement but talking to/trying to convert liberals and playing tailism with them are two majorly different things.



Converting liberals to socialism is one way to combat liberalism but we on the left need to think of creative ways to take that battle further. Of course a huge part of being a Maoist is knowing who is a class enemy and why they are a class enemy. The ignorance in a person might say "well the liberals are poor so they are not our class enemy". But this is incorrect because while some poor people in society might be liberals, most poor people do not vote and certainly the most oppressed section of the US population (migrant workers) don't/can't vote. Most liberals still stand up for capitalism and some liberals do not even want full social services. Most liberals are middle class "blue collar" workers, or small business owners (bourgeoisie).



The liberals do not fight for the empowerment of the people or even for the betterment of the people. The liberals do not even fight for the betterment of the middle class workers. They too fight for the corporations and the big bosses just as much as the neo-conservatives do. A big sign that the liberals are a big enemy of the people are things like "Moveon.org" who fool people left of the liberals by saying "we want something better" but then just support the democrats and they refuse to criticize the democrats to any end. And this group has millions of members, it is depressing to see the people cheated like that. They are an enemy of the people, because they are herding progressives right around back into supporting the people we already know to be against the people.



But part of the blame is on US the communist. We have played tailism and have not shown the masses any alternative to the liberals to the point that some progressive democrats have called themselves "left-wing". We argue so much between ourselves that no one outside of our socialist and the activist circles even know we exist. We have no sway in politics at all, is this not depressing to anyone else? The only "communist" organization with any sway (they are not revolutionary communist that is for sure) is the CPUSA and that doesn't even count because they only have a very little fraction of a sway in the.......that's right the democratic party AKA they play tailism.



If we are to move forward to socialism in this country then all the parties need to start advocating for socialism and stop using their front groups to promote liberalism. Of course some parties and ORGs are more guilty of this than others but in the name unity I won't point them out by name. If we do not advocate for socialism how will people even know we exist? Let alone what we stand for. Every group has a "What we stand for" book or brochure but they don't advocate for socialism outside of these papers. So how would the average Joe ever convert to socialism if at all the rallies he goes to the socialist are the ones follow and chanting the same slogans as the liberals? He wouldn't, he would think that socialist are just the extreme side of the democrats.



Another way to combat liberalism is that the people reading this need to unseat all defeatist from their parties leadership. Defeatism in the leadership will only cement your parties/organizations tailism as it's main tactic. Someone in a leadership role once said to me: "you cannot just wish different conditions into existence" he said this as a defense for carrying out tailism under his leadership. To which I replied "Of course we cannot wish anything into existence, there is no such thing as magic lamps. But we can make different conditions for ourselves through hard work and advocating for socialism." He then ended the conversation.




The future is up to us. We can stay on this same 40+ year old path or we can make our own path and start moving forward. We have been the ones who have been holding ourselves back so it is time we let ourselves go in a different direction. A direction the movement has not gone since the 60's: forward!



Written by: Dustin Slagle

The Socialist Parties: A Collective Problem

It is no secret that all the socialist parties seems to share one common trait; bureaucracy. As a person who has been a active socialist for some 6 years plus now, and has many friends in the communist movement. One story seems constant to me, the story of un-democratic bureaucracy ruling over the party. Or to put it plainly bureaucratic-centralism. To someone who may not know what this means, it means that instead of the majority choosing how things are run there are a few (leaders) members who make all or most of the decisions and the majority is expected to parrot (follow) the decision. If the bureaucracy has reached a high level than any criticism of the leaders decisions are usually treated as treason or you are simply purged from the party.


Democratic centralism is suppose to be where the majority chose what to do in a certain situation or the majority decide what stance the party will take on certain issues. And the people in the minority are expected to follow and defend the choice. A common slogan is "freedom of discussion, unity of action."

But why and where does this problem come from? I will attempt to answer these questions in this entry. Some people simply write it off as Stalinism, but this not only lacks in-depth analysis but also blindly ignores dialect materialism. The fact is that most all revolutionary (and non-revolutionary)socialist parties suffer from this to one degree or another.


Why did this problem develop?: This is no easy answer. Since democratic centralism started a long time ago it is hard to pin point exactly when it went wrong. So I will go with something that should be fairly obvious. Even Trotskyist use the democratic centralism model in most of their parties but when a party or country degenerates to bureaucratic centralism the trots call that party/country Stalinist. Of course a Trotskyist is never going to pass up a chance to jab at Stalin but in reality it was Lenin's model of democratic centralism that is/was incorrect. This writer personally believes if Lenin was alive today he would say the same thing. One thing communist seem to ignore is that we should always be advancing and moving forward. Of course it was not Lenin's fault it turned into a bureaucracy as I believe he would have called for a different approach if he would have seen what democratic centralism was to become.


In reality democratic centralism naturally leads to bureaucracy. When a party starts there are usually a few members who are more dedicated than others or do more work than other members. This rightfully earns this said person a certain amount of respect among the founding members and new members. So they are elected to a seat of power. The problem is that as time goes on the people who started the group want to make sure things are run the way they want and that they stay in charge. So what ends up happening is that the original members end up with multiple seats or too much power. New members of a party may take years to realize the level of bureaucracy in their party, especially if the party lets its new members vote on the small things giving the member a false sense of inner democracy.

Some parties claim they use democratic centralism yet they just tell their members the party believes this about China or that about China (just an example) and expects the new members to parrot these stances even though the party never held a vote on the issues. Usually a parties "Central Committee" decides on the parties stances on issues, but why does a small group think they should decide what is the best stance for a party? Well since these people are nominated by other party members some people parrot that this is real democracy, but is it? No, this is another fault of democratic centralism today. A small number of older members just ends up running the party and making all the major choices.


The biggest problem that develops after this stage is when a member offers a criticism of the parties theoretical line or stances on a certain issue, they are usually treated as a traitor or are accused of not following democratic centralism. What happens next is that when the party should take his/her criticism seriously and figure out the best way forward theoretically, instead the criticizer is kicked out of the party.

Parties that claim to use dialect materialism should always be open to changing a position on an issue or international situation. If a party/org kicks one of their members out of for criticizing the theoretical line then that party does not follow dialect materialism and should not claim so. A party can expect its members to defend the parties choices but if the party does not include all or most party members in the decision making process then it is not following true democratic centralism. My point being that it is hard to up hold democratic centralism in the first place.

I'm not the kind of person to just write a criticism without offering some kind of alternative or a way to fix the said problem.

So how do we fix this bureaucracy with in democratic centralism? Well dogmatism in a communist might say we need to reform it. But the fact of the matter is we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together. Ive had many discussions with people about democratic centralism and no one has shown me a way to reform democratic centralism that would eliminate the bureaucratic element.

Since it does not seem possible to reform democratic centralism we must resort back to our revolutionary roots and find something new. This brings to mind something that has been tried before but was dismantled by the right wing of the CPC. Communal democracy and a communal run planned economy.

I do not personally believe that there has ever been a better example of true democracy in either a country or a party that represented the masses to the fullest. Plus we know from experiences that democratic centralism run on a national scale quickly turns sour and eventually ends up oppressing people who speak outside of what the party says it is okay to speak out against. Communal socialism would be better because how is some one in LA or DC or NYC suppose to know what we need in Mississippi or Illinois or Colorado etc? Only the people from those areas know exactly what they are producing and what they need. Each area would be more personally in charge of themselves and thus wouldn't feel the constant oppression of the centralized state.

Obviously this writer knows he doesn't have all the answers but I am sick of seeing hundreds of intelligent individuals walking around parroting what their leaders, elders and party tell them to. It is time for the communist to start using dialect materialism correctly again, it is time for a revolution!

Written by: Dustin Slagle

(I plan to expand on this)

Scare tactics

Nazi's Are Not Socialist

First lets start with the biggest myth associated with socialism. The biggest scare tactic is associating the German Nazi party with communism or socialism. Firstly in socialism all the people equally benefit from working as a whole. Instead of producing goods for profit the goods are created for the society use as a whole. Workers rights are put before that of the rich and ruling classes. Socialism attempts to destroy the ruling class and replace capitalism with a workers democracy.

National Socialism is only socialism for the national majority or in the Nazi's case, socialism only for white non-jewish Germans. But they benefited from the oppression and exploitation of the minorities. As anyone who cares to read up on history, the communist and social democrats were the first people thrown into the death camps or were just taken out into the country side and shot. The National Socialist party was actually more accurately described a fascist party. Fascism has been described by many people as corporatist jingoism (extreme and aggressive patriotism/right-wing-racist nationalism).

In Nazi Germany the unions were destroyed and profit for the ruling class and their factory owning friends was the number one priority. The only reason some Jewish men/woman lived through the Holocaust is they were a source of free labor.

All socialist/communist parties are staunchly anti-fascist and in most cases join forces with anarchist all the way to liberals to combat fascism. The two ideologies could not be more different.

Wrongful Name Association

One of the next biggest scare tactics against socialist is name association. As a socialist Ive been called many things in my life. It never fails for people to drop one name to trying when trying to discredit socialism; Stalin. I have personally been called a Stalinist so many times I have lost count.

Let me start by saying this; the word Stalinism has no base. Mao, Marx and Lenin, all of these people contributed something to the ideology of their respective forms of communism. For example Mao created "people protracted war" (and many other ideas) and there for Maoism is distinct from other forms of specific socialism. Stalin (unlike Mao/Lenin/Marx) contributed no advancement of socialist ideology. Thus the word Stalinist/Stalinism is just a scare tactic used to scare people away from socialism and has no base or meaning what so ever.

Communism is "Un-democratic"

First lets explain that un-like the popular opinion in the US, there is more than one form of "democracy". The US uses bourgeois democracy, meaning that the candidate with the highest funding mostly wins the election. In the US "democracy", party candidates are nominated by the parties after paying a sum of money, then voters get to pick from them in the primaries.

In socialism countries run on democratic centralism people are nominated by other people at the local level. Then after this they will run in a popular vote at the local/state or national elections depending on what they are nominated for. This is commonly called a workers democracy. In democratic centralism everyone votes as individuals but acts as one. This also keeps the citizens of said country involved in their government but this system also has problems but I will touch on that in a later post. The idea that communism is un-democratic is a truthful as saying Iraq still has WMD.

Socialism is an idea of peace, love for your brothers and sisters, community, equal rights, anti-oppression, anti-imperialism, and is all about giving the power to the majority, power to the people!

By: Dusty Slagle