Talk:Communist Party USA/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Soviet funding again

A recent anon edit removed the following paragraph:

"From 1959 until 1989, when Gus Hall attacked the initiatives taken by Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, the Party received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow line in contrast to the French and Italian Parties whose Eurocommunism deviated from the orthodox line. The cutoff of funds in 1989 resulted in a financial crisis resulting in cutting back publication in 1990 of the Party newspaper, the People's Daily World to weekly publication, the People's Weekly World."

I have no knowledge of the factuality of this paragraph. I also (since the editor simply deleted it without comment) have no idea whether someone deleted it because they have evidence that it is false or just because they didn't like it politically. I am not restoring it, because I am not sure of it factually. If indeed it has some basis in fact -- and it wouldn't astound me -- I would hope (1) that it is restored and (2) that whoever restores it will indicate a source, to allow readers some ability to evaluate the claim. It would be very different if, for example, this is the claim of the FBI or of a neo-conservative, as against (for example) if this can be attributed to an in-party source. -- Jmabel 00:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted material. Again, for the third time, the source is The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, Basic Books, 1999, hardcover edition, pages 287-293 and page 306, ISBN 0-465-00310-9. The same material is in Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, John Barron, Regnery Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0895264862; 2001 edition, ISBN 0709160615 This is the biography of Morris Childs who together with his brother Jack arranged for and handled the money transfers during the 1960s and 70s. Morris and his brother Jack were double agents; in 1975 they received the Order of the Red Banner from the Soviet Union; in 1987 they were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Reagan. Fred Bauder 02:30, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC) Fred Bauder 20:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) Fred Bauder 02:43, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

And now, a few minutes later User:TDC has restored similar claims, but more vaguely, and accompanied by vague claims of documentation but no specifics. Folks, is this an encyclopedia or a high school debating society? Controversial statements should be sourced, or all we are going to have is an article that keeps flip-flopping, never improves, and mostly reflects who touched it last. -- Jmabel 01:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Source: The Soviet World of American Communism by Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Kyrill M. Anderson TDC 02:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, guys, let's get the sourcing into the article. People should not have to read the talk page to know that a statement is sourced! For sources that are not online (and hence cannot be searched), page numbers are also very useful. Even after your remarks here, I have no way to know which of the statements comes from which of the sources. -- Jmabel 04:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have done that, but it is rather lengthy and fits poorly in the article. However it gives a few good links and is perhaps justifed due to the general disbelief that Soviet funding was received, actually funding began in 1919, but that is another story. With regard to citing sources, I wonder where the 25,000 number for party membership in the the 70s or 80s comes from. My information is that membership might have reached 15,000. Fred Bauder 13:03, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of this could use better sourcing. I just figure that decent sourcing will stop people from periodially deleting your content!
In any case, I hope you don't mind my moving your sourcing to what is effectively a footnote. I didn't mean you needed to make your whole case in the body of the article, just that a statement that was obviously controversial enough that people kept deleting it should clearly be sourced. Hopefully, this will encourage others to follow suit. -- Jmabel 18:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is why WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE DECIMATED AND DESTROYED FOR HISTORIC REVISIONISM

The Daily World changed from daily to a weekly 19 year before the Jan 8, 2005 issue Vol. 19, No. 28 making it 1985 not 1989.

Assuming your count is correct, there is an error. Fred Bauder 15:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Essay by Helga

moved from meta wikipedia "Another Helga essay --mav":

A number of American Communists in America were installed in the hightest positions of the United States government. They made and assisted with a number of crucial decisions, which had worldwide effects. The general American public was left in the dark. Even senators were not able to access US government records to find out, what really went on.

When US President Harry Truman found out, that he had inherited a group of American Communist US policy makers, who were vital in making major decisions in all aspects of US policies, some of them were quietly let go by him.

With the dissappearance of the Iron Curtain in the 1990's a number of details are now coming to light as to the actual magnitude of these agents and infiltrators.

Communists in America had been present decades before WW II.


1949 article by Raymond B. Allen[[1]] Hoover Institute, Hoover Digest 1999 No2 article [[2]]

There is no article on American Communists yet, this is a stub to get it started

Korean War

The Korean war article lists 600,000 as the nuber of Koreans killed in the conflict. I am not sure where these figures come from, but the nubers I found are much higher. The statistics given by Chinese and North Korean sources on Chinese and NK casualties are too low to be considered accurate.

Korean civilian dead: between 1.8 and 2.6 million

North Korean combatants dead: between 100K and 1.2 millions Chinese combatants dead: between 50K and 1.8 million Soviet forces: approx 400-600

South Korean combatants dead: 415,000 US combatants dead: 33,629 Other UN contingents dead: 4,266

TDC 17:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Stalinist faction

An anon recently modified...

This faction, which was not numerous, but very energetic, began independent operations as the Progressive Labor Party, the October League, Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America) and "International Struggle Marxist-Leninist" (ISML) supporting the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Stalinist regime in Albania.

...to just, "This faction, which was not numerous, but very energetic, began independent operations as the Progressive Labor Party," claiming this as a "correction." My suspicion, though I'm not certain, is that the deleted portion of the sentence referred to groups that grew out of the PLP. If so, I'd suggest restoring the list, but making that relationship clearer (e.g. "...the Progressive Labor Party, the October League, which in turn spawned the October League..." etc.) -- Jmabel 05:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the original passage. I had personal experience of the October League, but don't know how significant they were nationally, although they dominated the Colorado chapter of the Lawyers Guild. I found those other two organizations while researching the article on Jack Shulman. How there organizations are related to one another may be difficult to establish, but all four did exist. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous editor responds and raises additional questions

As the anon who edited material re October League and has added some other material to the article. I'll just make the comment that info on the OL and other Maoist groups is not hard to find. Max Elbaums recent book Revolution in the Air is a history of them. And in point of fact these groups did not come out of or develop out of the CPUSA with the exception of the PLP. I'll add more on that splinter some day. OL did not come from PLP in any case. I'll also take this opportunity to note that its only sensible to have split the material dealing with Russian funding of the CPUSA into another article as it otherswise distorts this article. Finally the expression Soviet should not be used to refer to Russia as its an Americanism and factually inaccurate.

As to the October League, they are perhaps covered better in an article on the New Left or perhaps on the modern Stalinist movement. Many of the leading participants were raised in Communist families, but never joined the Party themselves, although some of them claimed to have gone to "camp". I am reading a book, The American Communist Movement which has some information. We might consider an article with a title like that. I'll take a look at Revolution in the Air. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Soviet funding of the Party belongs in the article. It is simply too well documented. If we were to write the article from a sympathetic point of view it would still belong in the article, but perhaps there could be more about the hopeful attitude of Gus Hall regarding political organizing opportunities and the desire of the Soviet Union to assist American workers and other oppressed Americans. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
As to the expression, Soviet, my impression was that the Americanism was to call the Soviet Union, Russia, while using Soviet was appropriate. Perhaps you could suggest some alternatives. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

On the October League any mention needs to be minor as they had no organisational link from the CPUSA. Certainly some of the leaders of the OL were Red Diaper babies but thats outside of the ambit of a historical survey of the CPUSA. A separate article best covers them as would be needed for the RCP, and other New Communist Movement groups. I don't know the book you mention Fred but please bear in mind the territory is very prone to bias! Elbaums book is definitive on those groups he covers as is acknowledged by most participants. Russian is preferable to Soviet in my opinion as being more accurate - soviets simply did not exist in any meaningful sense after 1921. And I'm pro-Soviet! I've no objection to mention of Russian funding by the way, it must be mentioned, but to deal with in detail it needs its own coverage or it overly distorts this article.

Jock Haston

"Soviet" with a capital "S" is is a very different matter than "soviet" with a small "s". True, the Soviet Union (or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) after its first few years had nothing to do with small-s soviets. However, it is extremely POV to refer to it as Russia, since a large portion of its territory was outside of Russia: an area now constituting 14 other countries, in fact! Yes, this association is rather malign to the concept of small-s soviets, but that's the way it is. Capital-S "Soviet" was the acceptable adjective for the Soviet Union in its time, and I can't think why we shouldn't continue to use it now. Just like "American" in most contexts is the English-language adjective to refer to the USA, much though that annoys people from elsewhere in the Americas. -- Jmabel 00:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Soviet with or without a capital S is plain wrong and outside the USA was rarely in common use. Really the usage depends on the context. And if we're talking about the influence of the leading party in the Comintern and then the Cominform on the CPUSA then Russia is more accurate than Soviet. If for no other reason than that Soviet refers to the state while Russia refers to the actual party. Although the state and party were in practice indistinguishable, the real focus of rule being the nomenclatura in any case, we need to make clear who was influencing or funding whom. So it is wrong to talk of the Soviets influencing the CPUSA when it was the Russian CP to which they related. Finance on the other hand may or may not have originated with the RCP. But to be honest thats not a topic I've any great interest in so further comment is superflous.

Something of a mess

Right now, this article is something of a mess. In particular, there is a mix of US and British spellings. Since this is a specifically US topic, I'd be inclined to go with US spelling. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Jmabel 03:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Cold War Espionage

The following addition, "The USSR covertly subsidized the CPUSA all throughout the Cold War, with a third of their donated funds going toward illegal activities, including espionage. Releases from the Comintern archives show that many national communist parties were influenced in the same fashion." is false. In the United States Soviet funds were used for meeting expenses of the Party. The purpose of the funds was mainly to make Communist organizing efforts more effective and to serve the foreign policy interests of the Soviet Union. There was significant involvement of the Party in espionage during the late 30s and during World War II and during the immediate post war period. After the rise of McCarthyism extensive FBI infiltration of the Party made Party cooperation in Soviet espionage efforts impossible. Soviet agents such as Vilyam Genrikovich Fisher had no contact with the Party. Fred Bauder 16:36, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

If the quoted material is to remain in the article, very good references for its assertions will be needed. Fred Bauder 16:38, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I got it from "In Denial", which to be honest I was reading half asleeep on the train late last nite, I will look it up again. TDC 16:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if it's from In Denial, what pages? Fred Bauder 22:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Sources

Recent addition by TDC: "The USSR covertly subsidized the CPUSA all throughout the Cold War, with a third of their donated funds going toward illegal activities, including espionage. Releases from the Comintern archives show that many national communist parties were influenced in the same fashion." I'm not removing it, but I sure won't defend it in its present form if anyone does. I am not comfortable with this statement about "illegal activities" and "espionage" being made without clear attribution. Again, I find it utterly disingenuous to refer to "Releases from the Comintern archives" without specific attribution. I'm not saying that this is false, but I am saying that it is controversial and therefore should not be said in the narrative voice of the article without attribution. "[I]llegal activities, including espionage" is a particularly tricky phrase without any indication of what portion was espionage. For example, it would be true if the bulk of the money was spent on trying to circumvent the McCarren-Walter Act and any amount at all, however tiny, was spent on espionage. -- Jmabel 21:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of any response from User:TDC I have looked in In Denial (ISBN 1893554724) and the only reference that remotely resembles the information he put in the article is a brief reference on page 78 which refers to a particular contribution from Comintern (which dates it as before 1943 so not a part of the cold war) which designated 1/3 of the amount to be use for "illegal" operations (that is, underground) activities and the remaining 2/3rds for "legal" activities, that is, open Party activities. Fred Bauder 14:31, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

The section CPUSA funding and espionage needs considerable copyediting. I removed the unsupported material but added the information that Soviet subsidies began in 1919 and continued til the dissolution of the Soviet Union. See pages 68 and 69 and the following discussion in In Denial (ISBN 1893554724). I removed the phrase Cold War from the section heading. There are some time problems here. There was active espionage by the Soviet Union during the late 30s and up until the late 40's which was assisted by the CPUSA but that assistance extends only into the very early years of the Cold war. In any event this needs to go into an article History of Soviet espionage in the United States. A few brief paragraphs are all that are needed in this article. Fred Bauder 14:52, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Idealism

I have restored the section on the idealism and hard work done by Party members. This article is incomprehensible without some information of this nature, although the material could probably be more elegantly presented. Forming and joining an organization of this nature requires considerable motivation and not just of the sort, "They were contrary". Perhaps some detail on working class and ethnic motivations and that of intellectuals might be developed. Fred Bauder 14:55, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I probably should have said something here before deleting it. Still, the paragraph strikes me as unnecessary, because it can be assumed that anyone working for any radical organization believes in its goals. If you said that Communists were notably more dedicated or idealistic than, say, Socialists or Prohibitionists or Birchers or whatever, then its inclusion would make more sense... but I'm not at all sure if that's true. Chowbok 17:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Those other groups you mention, with the exception of the socialists which for most people in the world is just another political party, share the characteristics of the Communist movement, but they all differ from such organizations as the Democratic Party which folks often join and participate in without signifcant commitments of time and energy. What I want to see eventually is an exploration of the idealist, or to be Marxist about it, the material basis of the typical intense involvement. Fred Bauder 19:13, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fraternal assistance

I have somewhat modified the language but restored the section on fraternal assistance, "From the Communist point of view this international funding arose from the internationalist nature of communism itself; fraternal assistance was considered the duty of Communists in any one country to give aid to their comrades in other countries." The point of view is clearly identified and appropriately included. That everything went wrong and they ended up butchering 10s of millions of people for nothing doesn't abrogate their principles.

Merger proposal

I don't like the proposal to merge this article with the articles about the two original American communist parties, Communist Party of America and Communist Labor Party. While there is not a lot of information available about either, what is available is too detailed and specific to the time to be included in this article. Fred Bauder 11:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Davodd, it looks to me like you merged articles dispite a {{MergeDisputed}} tag, without even responding to Fred Bauder's objection. I can't even reconstruct quite what you did. Precisely which articles did you merge? Communist Party of America now shows no history except that it was moved to Communist Party USA. I'm pretty sure a Communist Party of America article previously existed, and I know there was already an article at Communist Party USA before this move. (I have duplicated this comment on Davodd's talk page and asked for response here.) -- Jmabel 18:29, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
It looks as if Communist Party of America was a precursor of Communist Party USA - therefore is part of the CPUSA's history. If a consensus is for the CPA to come back in its original form, simply go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Communist_Party_USA&oldid=5738470 and edit. COPY the text. Then go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Communist_Party_of_America&redirect=no, edit and PASTE the previously copied text to replace the redirect instructions. Then save. The article is restored. My suggestion: Keep CPA as a redirect until more information can be gained on the organization to make it into a full-blown article rather than a re-hash of what's already in CPUSA Davodd 18:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still really confused as to what happened? Did you merge the histories? And if so, why? Shouldn't Communist Party of America show its own history instead of mixing two unrelated edit histories? Or am I missing something? -- Jmabel 18:51, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Histories were merged. That is how an administrator merges articles as per GFDL. Davodd 19:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

The CPUSA today

I am astonished that this article makes no mention of the split that led to the formation of the Committees of Correspondence. Nor is there a word about the fact that the CPUSA has adopted a reformist (electoral) route and abandoned revolution. Shorne 20:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I have this on my watchlist mainly to respond to vandalism, but this emphatically should be there. Want to write it? -- Jmabel 22:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not the most qualified person, I'm afraid. I can try, but I won't do a very good job. Is there anyone else who has more information? Shorne 00:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed both these problems in this entry but my time is limited. I've added quite a bit to the history section in small additions. Before I did this entry was mostly centered on the CPUSA and societ espionage and money which was crazy while some basic facts were totally wrong. I'll add a little on the foundation of the Committees of Correspondence soonish if that helps anyone. The question as to reform or revolution is however far more contentious. The problem is when did the CPUSA abandon a revolutionary position? You see communists argue that it went over to refomrism with the Popular Front in the 1930's, on the other hand some Maoists argue it only went over to reform with Browders CPA adventure, and others argue that Fosters passing ewas a key moment. This disputes can and should be noted. But first the story needs fleshing out with more facts rather than loading it down with conflicting opinions that unbalance it. Jock Haston

Ruy Lopez edit

It is not that the section being removed is not redundant, it is, but it contains information and links which need to be transfered to the section below. The current state of affairs resulted from a clumsy merger which was insisted on, see above. Fred Bauder 13:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Major overhaul

The latest attempt to rewrite the article by Italo Svevo (major overhaul) is not bad, although one can quibble.

One question though:

"The party majority reasserted the orthodox line and the minority formed the Committees of Correspondence in 1992 as a moderate wing of the party. Unable to influence the CPUSA, the group soon left the party and established itself as an independent democratic socialist organization."

What independent democratic socialist organization is that and what is its name? Fred Bauder 14:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Italo Svevo edit

(I tried to post this comment last night but the system was locked up for maintenance. So here is my slightly belated explanation for the changes I have made for anyone who cares to review them.)

I have tried to tighten up the piece somewhat, but it is still too focused on wholly internal matters, such as the kaleidoscopic changes in leadership in the 1920s, 1950s and 1990s. The CP had a significant influence on American politics, particularly labor unions, but those issues were not dealt with in any depth in the previous version. I have added links to the free-standing articles, Communists in the U.S. Labor Movement (1919-1937) and Communists in the U.S. Labor Movement (1937-1949) both to save space and to lead readers to a more thorough discussion of these issues.

The article. as rewritten, also does not address the CPUSA's long history on "the Negro Question," with all its twists and turns. I have linked to an empty page on this issue with the hope that someone with some knowledge on the subject will write something. The omission of anything on this topic, with the exception of a passing reference to the "African Blood Brotherhood," is astonishing. I will contribute a short piece on the subject, sketching out the major themes (early efforts, competition with Garvey, the Black Belt, Scottsboro, Langston Hughes and Richard Wright, organizing, particularly in the UAW, Steel, Packinghouse and Food and Tobacco, Angela Davis and the New Left) in the next week or so.

Someone might also want to deal with the issue of CPUSA/left influence on intellectuals and the arts or popular front politics in more detail. That would require a new page in addition to the current Popular Front page, which is far more general.

I have left in the section on Soviet financial support and espionage (which I lumped together as a separate headings, subtext be damned), but I have shortened it somewhat. I confess that I do not know or claim to know how much of this is established and how much is genuinely disputed. I took out all the back and forth about Robert Meerpol.

I took out the part on motivations of party members. I understand Fred Brauder's intention in including this, but it simply was too generalized to have any real value and doubtful in most cases. Party membership tended to be very fluid, particularly in its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s: most people did not remain members for very long because they could not stand the number of meetings and other duties piled on top of their other obligations. I also took out the part entitled "Organizing", since it does not fit the largely chronological/special theme organization of the piece. If we are going to say anything about activists' use of pseudonyms and what that meant for the party when it went mainstream or CP parliamentary maneuvering, we will have to deal with this in more depth than I could.

I have also reduced the Fourth International slant on internal CP events, but left in most of the "Cannon and Spector on the road to Damascus" incident, if only because it was such an interesting story on its own merits. But I believe that someone else should find another place for much of this early history; perhaps we should unmerge those articles, if that is, in fact, what happened. I plan to go back to tighten it up further (I made other edits when I thought all of these had been lost by the lock-up), possibly moving the discussion of foreign language federations, which is out of strict chronology, to a page of its own.

As for the point raised by Fred Brauder immediately above, I don't know, I just left the text the way I found it. Good question, though.

Finally, I eliminated most of the British spellings. "Steel Worker Organising Committee" is just wrong; once you change that, then everything else has to change too. I may have missed a few, but I will go back to clean it up.

As for questions, quibbles or criticisms, are there any? I'd like to correct any mistakes or omissions and improve it further. Italo Svevo

Edit by 24.126.41.116

This edit removes important and well established information about the early history of the Communist Party. The removed information was presented without comment or conclusion. I think it is simply interesting. Fred Bauder 12:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the info should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Restore it. Everyking 18:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But whoever takes this on, please don't just revert, because there were also some good edits here... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Italo Svevo (aka 24.126.41.116)

I hate to sound dense or defensive, but just what information about the early history of the CPUSA are we talking about? I moved the section on the Language Federations to its own page and elaborated somewhat on it. The old information was out of place, since it stretched back to the early days of the SLP, and incomplete. As for the other materials, the paragraph I deleted about Reed and Fraina could or should be moved to their own pages. The other changes in this area did not delete information, but deleted redundancies--or at least that was my aim. Italo Svevo

Well, you know, when you do this anonymously and without commenting that you are moving the material to other articles, people make the not unreasonable assumption that some casual user who doesn't necessarily know his or her way around Wikipedia is just deleting the material outright. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I am the constant user who doesn't know his way around Wikipedia: still can't figure out how to sign my name, can't log on from my wife's computer, and have, until now, typically worked on articles that few people visited. Didn't mean to sound peevish. Italo Svevo

New article spun off

The Communist Party and Black America is now ready to be edited, expanded, criticized, etc. Note that it is weak after 1939 and particularly so after 1956. Someone should also write a piece on the ILD which is not, of course, just Scottsboro. Italo Svevo 05:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Communist Party and Black America

Wouldn't it be better to title the article The Communist Party and African Americans? "Black America" sounds as though American blacks are a monolith -- though I certainly don't believe Italo Svevo thinks this, the title seems to suggest it. Zantastik 05:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be open to any number of changes: I would have used The Communist Party and the Negro Question but I assumed that people would think it was tongue in cheek. The CP and A-A is an improvement, but if anyone has a better name, let's hear it. Italo Svevo 18:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

80.217.161.77

User:80.217.161.77 has been making numerous additions to various left pages, adding Stalinist qualifiers, sometimes replacing socialist with more loaded terms. This kind of substitution has been discussed before, so I've reverted the edits in hope of leading to discussion of how the CPUSA can be discussed as Stalinist and when. DJ Silverfish 20:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that whole subject is very problematical; while there were American Communists who read Stalin and perhaps thought something of his work, there were no American Communists who ran concentration camps or ordered the extermination of millions of people. What there was were people who accepted the theoretical perspectives that Stalin advanced, but Stalin advanced no theory of totalitarianism; he advanced a theory of democratic socialism. Fred Bauder 21:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

CPUSA publications

I just started a CPUSA publications reference subheading. I plan to post links to party documents on party structure and function. This will offer an opportunity to read primary sources in which the party comments on itself and its role in different eras. DJ Silverfish 16:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we establish the J. Peters referenced in the CPUSA publications section (Peters, J. The Communist Party: A Manual on Organisation [3] is the same Joseph Peters in the Soviet funding and espionage section and in the Venona project. Also I intended to do a bio stub on Joseph Peters.Nobs 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume that the three names (Sandor Goldberger, J. Peters and Joseph Peters) all refer to the same person. It would be interesting to see what you can find out, though. I look forward to your Joseph Peters article. DJ Silverfish 23:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Brigade

I reverted the description of the international brigades as unlawful combatants. Is this an original designation, or is there a reference? Would they be considered unlawful if invited by the Republic of Spain? DJ Silverfish 20:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Columbia Historical Review Dutch Involvement in the Spanish Civil War, the League of Nations Non-intervention committee voted February 21 1937 to ban all "volunteers" and had no law to protect non-governmental "belligerent rights"; hence they were "unlawful comabatants" to use the modern term or discription. Nobs01 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. It would also be interesting to know the description used at the time, since "unlawful combatant" seems to chronologically out of place. DJ Silverfish 21:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those seem to be the terms used, Comintern "volunteers" (i.e. non-state sponsored), and then they took up the discussion of "belligerent rights"; so the terms would be something like "volunteer belligerent rights", and the Non-intervention committee is the body reviewing the issue. Also, that source has a good discussion on prohibitrions of the individual member states regarding "volunteers". Nobs01 22:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soviet funding of the Party and espionage

The section CPUSA#Soviet funding of the Party and espionage duplicates much of the entry History of Soviet espionage in the United States and now is beginning to duplicate other portions of the CPUSA article (for example, re-introducing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Side articles are created to keep the main articles managable and as general as possible, not to serve as staging grounds for piecemeal cannibalization of the main article. DJ Silverfish 20:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like something like that is happening. I trust your judgement to edit redunantcies. Nobs01 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I will study it. I'll use the talk page for discussion first. Any big consolidation won't happen right way. DJ Silverfish 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DJ, did you get my note on the Talk:Earl Browder page? Nobs01 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed entry on the Talk:Earl Browder page. I took a few days off, so I've only just seen it now. I'll respond in detail there later, when I have more time. I'll also need to read the Venona book you are referencing before I can really get a handle on the espionage and its chonology. Regarding the CPUSA page, my opinion would be to keep a clean and linear narrative, with side entries taking on the research topics which require detailed chronologies. If you break the narrative to privilege any one aspect of the party's history, it starts to get incoherent. This may mean that the CPUSA main page is a little bland, but accurate. DJ Silverfish 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good advice; there is plenty of room on the bio pages of the 179 known spies to expand text in detail. I suspect "Secret apparatus" will become an article in itself. As to Venona, Venona FBI FOIA Files pgs 61-75 is absolute required reading, and I'd like to put a cleaned up version in Wikisource.Nobs01 22:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the "Findings and declarations of fact" of the United States Congress in passing the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, in 50 U.S. Code Chapter 23 Subchapter IV Sec. 841, states that,

"The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States...the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders...members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them...the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct...gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. [4]

Excellent example of an attributed viewpoint. Fred Bauder 22:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

The COINTELPRO article says that COINTELPRO was created in 1956 specifically to target the CPUSA, but I notice that COINTELPRO is never mentioned in the (much longer) CPUSA article. Is this correct? I think a lot of people have a tendency to think that there has only ever been one communist party in the U.S., and that CPUSA is it, so I'm wondering if this is just an error in the COINTELPRO article. OTOH, if it's correct, then maybe this article should mention COINTELPRO.--Bcrowell 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, a lot of the COINTELPRO material that was shared with the public came from a Freedom of Information request, or maybe discovery request, by the Socialist Workers Party. Your suggestion is correct , at least a brief note should be included in this article. Fred Bauder 17:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Scholars" and the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950

Nobs01 cut this remark about the long quotation from the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, pointing out (accurately) that it lacks citation.

This viewpoint is considered by most scholars of the Communist Party to be a gross simplification of the nature and history of the Party, emphasizing and exaggerating certain aspects while ignoring other important factors.

While it lacks citation, I would say it is almost certainly true; however I don't particularly wish to restore this (or its equivalent) without citation. Would someone who is more of a scholar in this field please provide an appropriate cited statement we can use instead? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the original abridged version may be prefereable to the lengthy text, reads like this,
"although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy... prescribed for it by the foreign leaders... to carry into action slavishly the assignments given...acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations...its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence...as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger" nobs 02:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)