Thoughts The Party Forum on the draft

Thoughtson the draftresolution

THE CLASS IDEOLOGY of the•writers of the Draft Resolution hasfinaUy caved in. They are no more interested in tlie life of a worker. Theyare easing: their -way out by "shortcuts" and "ejceeptionalisra." Theirunderestimation of the ■working-classI»wer is an exposing contradiction oftheir own isolation from the people inour countny—and most of all theirlack of understanding Marxism andLeninism, What do they know abouthow to work in a Taft-HartJey era ina shop and gain the influence and respect of the workers? Haven't theyheard that the Kohler workers are notready to eapituate to the bosses ? Thatthe class struggle still exists is evident by the numerous strikes andfierce struggles for better pay suidhealthier working conditions duringthe past year or two. The workersaren't ready to Browderite. Yet, isour own party?

Such boldness to refute Leninism bythese national leaders will bringahame, sharp criticism and a trueawareness by other parties of the seriousness of this ugly situation that exists. Will our national leaders refuseto hear their plea? After all . . . tocriticize and self-criticize on an international scale is Leninism. Dennis,Gates and etc. proclaim tdiat they wantsocialism. Do they realize that theyare only prolonging capitalism withtheir opportunism and "exceptional-Ism" and retarding the movement towards world socialism?

Really, Dennis, Gates and etc. . . .It isn't BO terrible to work for a livinglor a change and meet the people.

Los Angeles.

Issued byOaiif. State Committee

CPUBA

Rm. 705, 942 Market StSan Francisco 2, Calif.

The Party ForumVol. 1. No. 7 Price 5 cents December 1, 1956

"IP THE PARTY were definitelymore proletarian ui its coinpos'tion itwould not be so subject to the politicalconfusion which Is now harassing it.'^This profomid statement Is found inPoster's brilliant speech before theNational Committee on A;igust 23,1963. It strikes at the very heart ofthe serious situation that faces theparty. The opponents of Poster on theDraft Resolution are waging a franticand desperate battle to save theircomfortable chairs as leaders of theparty. The 20th Congress of the USSRCommunist Party evaluations have'brought about a healthy and determined spirit to apply Marxism-Leninism democratically, with modesty andpatience. We, too. have our share of"cult of the individual" in our party.

The assenters of the Draft Resolution are amongst those who achievedtheii- leadership during the yearswhich saw a depression, anti-fascistwars both in Spain and the world, imprisonment and etc. Such painful experiences are not desired by any ofus. We will always cherish their contributions and sacrifices. However itIs felt that such past experiences cannot always be looked back upon andtherefore justify their leadership,

There is a cry by the comrades inthe party today to place in leadershipindustrial workers with rich experiences and theory of Marxist-Leninistcharacter. This bold and independentlogic has shaken the local and nationalleaders to their bootstraps. It has revealed at the same time an exposingpicture of the class weakness of ourleaders. It is no accident, therefore,Oiat a call for abolishing the industrial clubs and moving our comradesin the shops to community clubs ismade by some of these leaders. It is noaccident that they are creating confusion and demoralization to detractfrom the main issue — the strengthening and uniilng of our forces.

THE CRISIS IN THE PARTYTHERE IS a crisis in the party, and

it would be folly to minimize how serious it is. Fundamental concepts havebeen shaken and uprooted, and it isunderstandable why a weakening ofconfidence In the party, and uncertainty as to its ability to change,should' be so widespread among themembership. We must make somebasic and sweeping change-: at ourconvention, if the party is to surviveas more than a sect.

Our mistakes were not simply thoseof tactics or political estimates. Wemust go deeper than that. Our sectarianism goes back to r dogmatic interpretation T>f our theory, characteristicof our party from its inception. Weaie now reviewing many fundamentaltheoretical concepts which we had formerly treated as though they werefixed for all time. The most importantthing that is happening In the worldCommunist movement today Is thateach party is seeking to break withdogmatism, and applying Marxism-Leninism in a creative way to theirown country'. Where they are movingtoo slowly in that direction, they arecourUng disaster. The creative contributions to Mai-xism-Leninism which arebeing made in many Communist parties since the 20th Congress were onceregai-ded as "heresy." It is all the moreregrettable; I think, that ComradeFoster should cry "heresy" at thistime, at the propositions put forth bythe National Committee in the partydiscussion.

To me, the question as to whetherwe call ourselves Marxists, or Marxist-Leninist, is largely a war of words.1 think we should base ourselves onthose principles of ifarx and LeninWhich are universally valid, and distinguish them from those which werevalid for a certain period or in different historical circumstances, butnot necessarily valid for our countrytoday. We should also not be afraid tosay that some concepts which we formerly regarded as immutable principles were never valid for America.

We should declare our independenceof any reliance on the Marxists ofother countries to determine our pathfor us. While we do not rate very highas masters of Marxist theory, only,American Marxists can. In the finalanalysis, chart the American j'oad toSocialism. This (foes not deny that wecan learn from the rich experience of-the international working-class movement. But we nuist, above all, baseourselves on American conditions, history. and traditions.

SS

1 THINK we can adhere to the principle of international working-classsolidarity without negating patriotismand concern for the national interestsof our own country's people. And, perhaps we can learn from the bitter andtragic experience of other parties inthis regard.

We should regard ourselves as anAmerican Matxist party which strivesto win support for its socialist outlookby participation in the political struggles of the day, and by ide-^logicalstruggle, that is, in the battle to winmen's minds through the many democratic channels which exist on theAmerican scene. It must retain itsworking-class character and outlookas a party of action, but must placegreater stress than we have on developing forms of mass education onwhat Socialism means for America.By this I do not mean that we shouldbecome a socialist debating society.There may be a limited part whichother socialist groupings can play, whoconceive of themselves in that role,but they cannot take the place of aMarxist working-class party.

We mast become a truly democraticparty, which will require a sharpbreak with past principles of organization. No policy should be made without full debate, including considerationof opposing views or altei-natlves. Theright of dissent should not be closed

after decisions are reached. Policiesshould be reviewed, and If necessaryreconsidered, after being tested inpractice. But we must devise someway whereby discussion does not become aimless and unduly protracted,and the events we are discussing havenot passed us by before we have arrived at any conclusions. If we are tobe a party of action, participating inthe great battles of the day. we musthave a system of organization which,while guaranteeing the fullest democratic practice, also results In unity ofaction when the majority ha.s decided.

I \youId not favor changing to-a po-name at this time. I do not think Itwould begin to solve -our problems inccnnection witt our fight for legality,at least at this stage of the fight. Wemay be forced to make some changes,sooner or later, which will help uswin the right of Marxist party to alegal existence, and when that becomesnecessary, changes in form or nameare not a matter of principle. Underthose circumstances. I believe suchchanges would be understood and accepted by the bulk of our membership,as well as outside the party, but' thisis not the case today.

IP THE REASONS advanced forpolitical association are other thanthose of legality, then I believe theyare likewise not warranted. Changesin form or name would only be justified if they reflected changes in ourfunction and role in an entirely different .situation, for example, if wewere one Marxist grouping within amuch broader socialist movement. Under p r e ? e n t circumstuncca. suchchanges might feed tendencies to\vardliquidation of the party, which wemust fight against.

I think we should be frank in admitting, however, that the tendencytoward liquidation of the party wasstrengthened by the loose way inwhich we have been tossing aroundthe slogan of a "mass party of socialism." This slogan gives a false picturethat there is some short-cut to get outof the dilemma we are in. It would bea dangerous illusion to see in this slo- ■gw, at this time, more than a hopefor the future. The changes we mustmake in our party will help pave theway for it, but they will not bring,overnight, such a mass party. We cannot reall.stically regard the objectivesituation in the country today, nor thostatus of the socialist-minded movement here, without realizing that amass party of socialism can only be along-range perspective. Certainly itcannot be realized by our mergingwith socialist-minded groups that arefar weaker, more sectarian, and evenmore divorced from the Americanworking-class than we are.

There are many questions that noneof us can answer at this time. I doubt-that our convention will answer all ofthem. But of one thing I ani sure. Ifwe do not take a big step in breakingwith the past in our dogmatic interpretation and application of Marxist'theory, in our system of organizationand leadership, and in our practices,our party cannot survive as an effective force on the .American scene. AndI.-am deeply perturbed by ComradeFoster's arguments, not as to tlievalidity of one or another of his state- -menta or criticisms, but because Ithink that the main weight of his position in the present party discussion isbeing thrown against any real change,and against any guarantees that we•will not make the same mistakes allover again. I do not see in his posi-tior) any real fight to break with dog-m^isra; on the conta-ary, his chargesthat the National Committee is "abandoning Marxism-Leninism" sounds tonrfe like a preoccupation with stickingto the letter of Mai-xlsm-Leninismrather than its essence, and such apreoccupation can only lead us badeto dogmatism.

I SUPPORT the Draft Resolu''on ofthe National Committee, as a beginning in the direction we have to move.I am not satisfied with many parts ofit, and I have heard many justifiedcriticisms of it. But I think we shouldnot lose sight of the fact that the lastsection of the resolution, on the party,does reflect in some measure the kindof changes widely demanded in thecourse of the party discussion. Iwouldn't defend to the death everyformulation in It; certainly some ofthem are highly debatable, and can bechanged at the convention. But thisdoes not warrant the wholesale con-

• demnatlon of the resolution, whichsome comrades are engaging in. Andit does not justify the chargesof "Right-Wing" "and "Browderism."made by Comrade Foster, which violate the spirit of a democratic discussion.

The crisis in the party was causedby mistakes we all shared in. It wasaggravated by the failure of the leading members of the National Committee to speak out earlier in the discu.s-sion. and to speak plainly. Perhapsthis was due In part to the fact that Ittuok time for opinions to crystallize.But it was also due to the fact" that theleadership has not been In the habit oftaking the membership into its confidence, and old habits die hard,

It is only now. 'n the final weeks ofthe discussion period before the <»n-vention, that we are beginning to cometo grips with the - -aential questionsthat must be resolved by the conven-'tion. and the only assurance we havethat they win be resolved is that theissues will be placed squarely beforethe whole pai'ty n-iembersliip.

The unprecedented world situationwe are in presents the greatest challenge to our party and the world Communist movement. Whatever our failures up to now, they were caused bythe fact that wo have not appliedMarxism in a creative way to ourcounti'y. In this sense, Marxism hashad no real test in America. The challenge we face is whether we can become a party of creative Marxism. Idon't think that any of us can answerthat for sure, but I think we have thecreative forces in our party to make abeginning in that direction.

WILLIAJt SCHNEIDERMAN.

Group opinionon merger

Here is our group opinion in answerto the many recommendations that webecome part of some larger socialistorganization.

It is not likely that BU(di an organizational change would insure us morefreedom to move. World developmentstoday give evidence that the mainstruggle is the struggle of Americanmonopoly capitalism against, not theC. P. itself, but the perspective of socialism in all forms and variations.

Moreover, on account of the objective condition of relative prosperity inthis country, there is no basis at the

"present time for a large party of socialism.

We are a tiny group, and it is important to maintain our identity andthe ability to take an independent position, building our own party whUeat the same time working, on a united-front basis, on all possible issues with.other socialist-minded groups,

Merging a C. P. into a laj'ge people'sparty should be a tactic of strength,as was shown in the East Europeansocialist countries after the secondWorld War, whereas here, at thistime, the concept would be baaed onweakness. In other words, we wouldincur the danger of succumbing instead of being one of the leaders ofsuch a coalition, and lo.se our. ideological identity and Independence ofthought.Young Debs, Echo Park Section.

f

A DEMAND FOR EDUCATIONON THE OCCASION of my very

firat^ club meeting. I was told that

one of the most important functions

of the Party was the education of its

members — and that .such education

never ceases. Delighted, J enroUed in

a six-weeh class that night. Eight

years later, I look back on that class

as the only one I have ever actually

attended—despite con.stant announce-

snents of classes to be formed, schools

to be opened, etc. With each announce

ment, I requested permission to at

tend—and permission was granted. The

classes never were held!

I cite this case as indicative of the

crying need for education of our people. Every state, county, division, section has the obligation to set upclasses, to be conducted on the highestlevel of Marxist understanding. Thepresent disintegration, the fallingaway of membership, the disillusion,can be traced in large part to the lackof development of our rank-and-flle,and is proof within itself that clubeducatSonals are insufficient for the

training of cadrea

As for the fields within which we .

should theoretically have done the bestwork—the liberation of the oppressed:here we have fallen down most deplorably. Considering the position of theNegro people in our country, theyshould number 40 per cent to 50 percent of our membership. Instead, weare virtual strangers to them. It maybe .said, with little credit to the party,that the two great gains of the pastfive yeai-s—the" outlawing in the courts

. of restrictive covenants, and the Su

preme Court decision on integration inthe schools—is basically the work, notof the Communist party—but of thatmiddle-class, nationalistic organization. the NAACP!

Even the small number of Negroeswho were part of our ranks in pastyears have dropped away to a distressing degree. And this 's due toour work methods. We have been moreconcerned with throwing around theterm "white chauvinist" at our mem

bership than with actually making ourinfluence felt within the Negjo communities. Likewise, we have been fartoo free with our accusations of "bourgeois nationalism." In, every liberationmovement in history, the people involved have fought for their freedomon a nationalistic basis. Rather thancriticize our Negro members for "na-

^ tionalism" when they speak as Negroes. it would be wise to make anattempt to understand the pressingcaixses which create this nationalism.

FOR EXAMPLE: the hub of theNegro community, is the church — andBaptist ministers have far more in- ^fluence with the Negro people thanwe. Would it, therefore, not be pi-ac-tical, from a dialectical standpoint,to learn to work with the Baptistminister, who speaks purely as a Negro. with no understanding of thewhite trade-union movement?

Proof of the validity of this is the factthat the Catholic Church has done abetter job of integrating the Negropeople than we Communists!

The intensity of feeling evidenced inthe church is one we white comradesmust fully appreciate and understand.—for our lack of understanding of thisfeeling has isolated us from the Negropeople to the extent that they lookuppn us as strangers and enemies.

While on the subject of the church,permit me to utter another criticism ofour methods. Our anti-clerical attitudehas done little to endear us to thesincerely devout American people. Theconcept of Jesus Christ has been apart of civilizeil life for many yearsand Communists who permit them

selves the stupidity of public ridiculeof Christian doctrines are only injuringthe Party. It is one thing to make ourdistaste for Christian doctrine and theorganized church known within theprivacy of party clubs and another tovoice them in tho hearing of those towhom our "heresies" can give offense.

TO RETURN to the matter of theoppressed: anU-Semitism continues on

the upswing in our country — butdespite the fact that our membershiproljs show a disproportionate numberof Jews, our efforts to struggle againstanti-Semitism have been dlscouraging-ly small. Further, we are completelyisolated from the great mass of 5.-000,000 American Jews. We shun themiddle-class organizations — the B'naJBrlth, Pioneer Women, Anti-Defama

tion League, Hadassah. We play nopart in the temples, the synagogues.We ignore the days which five thousand yeai-s of oppressed Jewry haveheld holy. Is there any wonder thatJews consider us anti-Semites?

We can only comand the respect andcooperation of the Jewish people byjoining with them in their struggle!

And the same holds true for the

Mexican people, most of whom closetheir doors in our faces when we tryto sell them our press!

Proof of our failure was the Rosen

berg case. In Los Angeles, with the

second largest Jewish community in

the nation, it was impossible to find a

Jewish rabbi to intone the prayers forthe dead when Emmanuel Bloch, thelavvyer who defended the Rosenbergs,passed on. That this man, who foughtfor Jews, as a Jew. wea so dishonoredby the Jewish people that we of theleft were forced to appeal to a Unitarian minister to say the "kacldlsh"

shows how far we Communists have

drifted from our objectives.

THEN THERE Is the matter of our

press. Despite the many discussionsat which this point has been raised,two reports in the PW by A1 Richmondhave failed to mention the subject: theremoval of the People's World to LosAngeles. It is my understanding thatthe paper was originally based in SanFrancisco because it was a strongtrade-union center, whereas Los An

geles had little industry. Today, thissituation is vastly changed. Los Angeles is now the third largest city inthe nation. As the aircraft capital ofthe world, it empioys 200,000 workers.—organized. It haa a vast steel indua-ti-y—organized. It is the second cityin the nation in automotive—organized. It is the second or third mostimportant garment center of the nation—badly organized.

Even if this were not so—the rate

at which people pour into this citymakes it the legitimate home of ourpress. One thousand pKsr.sons per daycome into lx)s Angeles, 400 of whomremain. They need homes, jobs, a wayof life, integration into the community—particularly the Negroes fleeing theSouth. What better way of educatingthem, along with the already-organized workers, than with a press thatmeets their needs ?

This in itself should be the answer

to the defeatist talk of reducing thePeople's World to a weekly. What weneed is more and better —' not less!

ONE FINAL SUBJECT: the terrible

defeatism which suggests that theparty dissolve, or merge with other.socialist-minded groups . . . and whichtakes the form of people dropping outwith the comment "why should I goon knocking myself out?"The truth is, comrades, that lllce the

American people around us, we American comrades are soft. 'We are filled

with self-pity for our struggles andoppression during the cold war era.:What nonsense! Compared to thesti-uggle of Communist parties in othernations—including Prance, Spain andItaly, which have not yet achievedsocialism — we American Communists

have had .the equivalent of a SundaySchool picnic during the cold wartConsider that of a nation of 160,000,-

000 people, roughly 200 have been arrrested under the Smith Act, and about

108 jailed! Compare this with Spain,France, Italy, Germany. And does anyone believe that Mao's followers were

gently treated by Chiang Kai-shek!The Communist Party has not suf

fered a fraction of the persecutionwhich is the every-day lot of theAmerican Negro people. Let us leam

(■Continued on Page S)

A condemnation of the PWWe strongly condemn the editorial

policy of the Daily Peoples World toward the present political crisis in theNew Democracies.

What is this editorial policy? It canbe outlined in the following terms:

(1) Play down and in effect distort -the demands of the working class andstudent organizations in the New Democracies. It seems to make no difference whether these demands are directed toward the extension of democracy in the factory or university, orwhether they are directed againstCommunism Party and Governmentbureaucracy. In the instance of Poznanthe PW chai-acterized the revolt of theworking people as an "imperialist leduprising" and continued to carry outthis policy even after the Polish Government acknowledged the just demands of the peoples' movement.

In the case of Hungary the PWnever has published the facts of'whowas rebelling . . . that there was agen«iral strike . . . or what the demandsof this movement were.

(2> Play up and thereby distort anyand all instances of fascist or imperialist support for the "unrest" in thePeoples' Democracies. Tiie purpose ofthis tactic is to reinforce the idea thattlie workingclass demands in thesecountries are imperialist inspired. Pointout that isenhower and Dulles support

- the unrest and ipso facto, the Com-muniat or Government policies in thesecountries are correct!

(3) Extensively quote the Sovietpress when it criticizes events in Poland or Hungary. This serves furtherto discredit the people's movement.

(4) Extensively quote the bourgeoispress (AP and UP) when it is helpfulin discrediting the popular demands.When the bourgeois press prints thedemands which show the working classcharacter of the people's movement. . . ignore this material!

(5) Bury or completely ignore thenews when policies (1), (2), (3), or(4) do not apply. This approach hasheen most consistently followed duringthis past week (prior to Oct. 29) inthe Hungarian crisis.

(6) If the working masses continueto malce Socialist history in the NewDemocracies regardless of our paper'spolicy . . . and their governments makemuch needed reforms after the greatest political pressure and perhaps considerable bloodshed . . . then our papermaftes a complete switch and'hails thenew developments as a logical normaladvance and "prooP' of the vit^ity ofSocialism in these countries. J

Over the weekend (Oct. 29-31) theSoviet govej-nment made self icriticalremarks about the unfortunate use ofSoviet troops in Budapest .. . at the

same time the Daily Worker came outand 'deplored" the \ise of Soviet troopsto suppress popular demands in Hungary. The Hungarian governmentmade sweeping concessions to populardemands. These included: dissolutionof the secret police, withdrawal ofRussian troops, broadening of the popular base of the government, andagreement to allow workers' councilsto be formed in the factories . . .

On Tuesday following this the PWcarried a front-page editorial titled"The Tragedy of Hungary." This wasa fine, straightforward editorial characterizing "the tragic events in Hungary" as a "bloody monument to thecrimes and blunders of the Stalinistera."

Unfortunately, however, it mightalso be referred to as the tragedy ofthe PW editorial policy because it repeats the characteristic switch as outlined above in item 6, and because itcomes from the editors only after thestatements of the Soviet governmentand those of the Daily Worker.

• • •

For the clearest indication of howthis anti-working class editorial policyapplies we refer the readers to theFriday. October 2C-, edition of the paper. This issue was published at thetime when all sources agreed thatthere were thousands of casualties,and blood was flowing in the streetsof Budapest. What then does the PWsay about this incredible situation ?What political leadership does our paper give Its readers horrified at theseevents?

First, it does not refer to Hungaryat all on page one. It devotes thefront page to the domestic electoralscene and at the bottom of the pageprints a story on "the new life opening in Poland." (This is to make us allfeel that things in the New Democracies are not so bad after all.) Then onpage three appears the story "changeserupt in Eastern Europe." There are3C paragraphs in this account. Thefirst 24 are devoted to changes in Poland, and the last six give us somebackground on the Hungarian situation, but there is scant mention ofwhat is actually happening politically.

Next, on page five there is an editorial called "Unrest in Eostern Europe." -This Utld is totally misleading.The entire editorial is devoted to Mr.'Eisenhower's interference in the internal affairs of Hungary. Now,_ Itis certainly true that Eisenhower andDulles are prepared lo^ climb on anyband wagon that appears to be anti-Soviet in character. But to place theeditorial in this context only, oncemore illustrates an editorial policywhich implies that the "unrest" is in

spired or led by the imperialists. Thefacts are tliat there was a generalstrike in Hungary, that the leaders ofthis strike had set forti; their demands. . . The demands included building Socialism by extension of mass democratic participation, and repudiationof the Warsaw Pact (i.e., the removalof Soviet troops). The people werefighting Soviet tanks in the streets ofBudapest, but our editorial polemicizcsagainst Mr. Elsenhower's interferencein Hungarian affairs.

Can an editorial policy like this doanything but further sap the politicalstrength" of the Socialist movement?Can an attitude of apology for a bureaucratic and arrogant Socialist government be excused because that gov-ei-nment has Communist leadership?What other conceivable reasons couldbe given for this kind of an editorialpolicy?

We would like to remind the editorsthat the loyalty of the PW should bedirected first of all to the welfare andstruggles of the worlcing class and tobuilding Socialism!

To confuse this loyalty with a loyalty for a particplar SociSUat government or party is to totally abdicate from political leadership.

Many of us hoped that Tuesday'seditorial on "The Tragedy of Hungary" indicated that our paper's editors had changed their ways. This hopewas severely bruised by the Fridayeditorial titled "A Socialist Commonwealth?" It quotes the Soviet government: "Close fraternal co-operationand mutual aid between the countriesof the Socialist Commonwealth on thebasis of fuU equality, respect of teiTi-torial integrity, state Independenceand sovereignty, and non-interferencein the domestic affairs of one another."

The PW editorial then states thatthe Soviet government "backs ihemup with specific actions." "It Is withdrawing troops from Budapest, offersto negotiate withdrawal of armedforces from Hungary, Rumania, findPoland, and to call home its economicadvisers." The editorial then goes onto state that "what is taking placenow is a return to fundamental Socialist principles."

The renders know what happened inBudapest subsequently, during thenext few days. We would lil?e to .submit Uiat if the PW editors recognized"fundamental Socialist principles" onFriday, why were they not recognizable the week previous or six weeksprevious? Can our paper return tothose fundamental Socialist pi-lnciplea

and stick to them. I'egardless of theposition others may take?

Club, San Francisco.

2 Party Forum

What kind of

do we want?THIS REPORT, endorsed iy the

entire membership oC Club #2, Hollywood, is based on the club's considera

tion at a lengthy text recently Issuedbv the Los Angeles County Board ofthe CP.

The text contained voluminous pro

posals for organizational changes inthe inner-party structure. Our clubmade this a topic of discussion forseveral hours, and it is noteworthythat we bogged down again and again,not quite knowing how to evaluate theproposals in question.

Pinally, we unanimously decidedthat we couldn't judge the merits ordemerits of the County Board's proposals until, first, an important priorquestion had been answered, to wit:"What kind of party do we want?"This question comes first because webelieve that form follows function.

Ergo, when we have decided on thekind of party we want, we shall thenbe in a position to consider the necessary form of organization by which tofunction effectively. More likely, theform will evolve by virtue of the kindof policy and activities we are engaged in.

Now, as to the kind of party wewant, our club considered the threealternatives which have been discussedin the party press:

)1( Liquidation of the CP, and formation of a new, broader mass partyfor Socialist-minded people.

)2( Non-liquidation of the CP, buta gradual change-over to a mass Socialist party as described imNo. 1.)3{ Retention of the CP as it is, but

with organizational changes along thelines of- the "New Look" that wouldinsure inner-party democracy.

ON THE WHOLE, our club membership favored #2 (that is, non-liquidation of the CP. but a gradualchangeover to a broader mass Socialist party). We favored this choice, butwith this reservation: we urgently desire a party that can operate legaDyunder the laws of our land!

This posed for us the question: "Cana legalized party be established without first liquidating the CP, whichright now is an "outlawed" party? We

••®».-::9jize that this question is no easyone to answer, even for legal experts.But we'd like to have this question getinto the hopper for earliest consideration. And. until it is answered, we shallbe in a continual state of Indecision asto chogsing between alternatives 1and 2.

To repeat for emphasis, all ourmembers would prefer to "go steady"with a party that enjoys a legal statue.

Finally, our club seeks-, clarificationon the Icind of Soclalist-mfnded groupsthat would be included if the party

party

were to change over to a broad maw

Socialist party. In short, who arethese main' groups? What do theystand for? Which gi-oups can be considered trustworthy and sincereenough to ally ourselves with?

For example, in the case of thosegroups which bear a Marxist label butwhich we have branded Trotskyites —•would they be welcome in the newsetup ?

Before signing off, we .should liketo compliment those who "have madethis printed Forum possible. Its valueIs incalculable.

•—Chairman, Club #2, Hollywood,

A demand

for education(Continued from Paye i)

from our oppressed how to endure under oppression—and go on struggling.And as we study—let us become awareof the nature of our nation—and rec

ognize that the precepts Lenin usedto lead the illiterate masses who toiled

under the Czar do not apply, exceptIn principle, to the American workingclass. Let us recognize the weaponsof the enemy, which gives us a struggling working class with a middle-class ideology — and learn to discussthe pi-oblems of "pork chops" on thelevel that American workers consider

acceptable! We must learn that it isless that the .American worker is opposed to socialism—than that we Communists have not learned how to present socialism to him! That our failureto play a vanguard role in the classstruggle indicates that our attitudeshave been obscured by Tolatoyan sentimentality. As Tolstoy spoke of the"beautiful soul of the Russian peasant."we talk of the American worker in

blue jeans and goggles as the "toilingma.sses." Neither Russian peasants norAmerican workers see themselves on

this sentimental level.

One further item: This critique began with a demand for education. Itmust end with the same. Before wecan decide whether we can make our

cause one with that of other socialist

groups, we have to know what theyare" and what they stand for: We wantto know: What Is a Trotskyite? ANorman Thomas Socialist? The Socialist Labor Party? What are theother socialist groups? Wherein do wediffer with them?

Let us educate ourselves—and struggle toward the inevitable goal of Socialism—whlcA the American peoplewill enjoy in the foreseeable future, nomatter what we Communists do!

—Los Angeles.

'From the masses,to the masses'OUR PARTY'S ideological and phys

ical isolation from the masses of the

people is evident and much has been

critically said in this regard.

However, it is also true that an ex

amination of party membership would

show, that the great majority of our

comrades are active in n.ass organizations, trade unions and political or

ganizations.

How come this contradiction?

I think the answer lies in the ig-

noidng and circumventing of what

should be the decisive role of the party

rank and file organized into commu

nity, industrial and shop clubs; the

one-sided domination and preparation

of bur party program (our mass line)

and guidance of this program by aleadership that, in the main, have beenseparated from practical work andconnection with the masses of the people.

Our Chinese comrades, in order to

insure a collective leadership, have a,'jplogan; "From the masses to the(Tiasses." They state: "The whole his-' tory of our work teaches us that whenever this line is followed, the work isalways good, and even if there aremistakes they are easy to rectify; andwhenever this line is not followed,then work Is marred by setbacks. Thisis the Marxist-Leninist method ofleadership, the Marxist-Leninist lineof work.'!

What does this slogan mean for us?Is it applicable only to the strugglefor Socialism in China?

No, definitely not!

Would there be any doubt that hadwe followed such a policy, where manyof the basic immediate demands for

our party program would flow fromthe masses, much of our sectarian errors of the past might well have beenavoided or at least, mitigated?

FOR EXAMPLE, could we haveproposed an immediate program forNegro Liberation based on "self-determination" and the struggle for separate nationhood when the masses ofthe Negro people were heart and soulfor "integration?" Not, if we werelistening to the Negro people and accepting the best of their ideas basedon their practical needs and experiences, not on our theory based on textbooks, even If these theories might beultimately correct.

Would there be any doubt that ourpresent fies with the Negro peoplewould.be on much firmer ground, ifwe had accepted as a method of work"From the Negro people to the Negropeople?"

If we had also followed such a policy in relation to all our activiUes,trade union and otherwise, our party,even Uiough under the savage attackof the past years would have beenmore able to resist those attacks, suffering less loss, and 'more closely knitting itself with the working class andthe people of our country.It must be pointed out that in fol

lowing the previously suggested coursewe must be careful to avoid slidinginto the quicksand of taili8m,.of trustin spontaneity, of negaUng the roleof Marxist-Leninist theory.How, then, can we regain a correct

perspective and re-establish our tieswith the people? In my opinion,through the party club as the basicorganization of the party. Its membership is that unit of the party thatis part of the masses of people. It isthe part of the party which la closestto the needs of the people, constantlyaware of their problems and theirconstructive ideas merging from theseproblems. This is not to negate therole of comrades in the foi-mulation ofthe ideas.

ORGANIZATIONAL ways and mean*must be found to insure and guarantee the decisive role of the club in projecting these ideas and needs into ourparty program and insure their beingcarried out.

Also the organizational road mustbe found that will enable the leadership to fulfill its function in organizing and co-ordinating correct strategyand tactics aixiund this program. Todo this there must be close and continuous contact between the thinkingof the rank and file and the leadership.The leadership must be regularly answerable to rank and file for all de

cisions, and an accounting to them ofprogress critically and selfcritlcally.Also, any member of a club must havethe right to criticize any leader without fear of being disciplined.

It will not be easy for the clubs toassume these new responsibilities. Inthe past there has been little or nocreative thinking emanating from theclubs at all. Old methods of worlc and

thinking that impede the ideologicaland political development of individualcomrades and of collective discussion,must be discarded. It is these corh-

rades in the clubs, the rank and file,and the new comrades coming into theparly, that one day wil be elected to,and assume leadership of, the strugglefor Socialism. They must be cherishedand nourished, carefully guided so thatin maturing they will represent thebest and most advanced thinking ofthe people of our country.

—LOS ANGELES.

FOR SYSTEMATIC AND BASIC EDUCATIONIN LARGE PART we.are middle-

class in makeup, and this is reflected

in our work and in our inter-party

ideology. This was demonstrated in our

group's inability to present the work-ingclass viewpoint in our railroad

pamphlets until we called upon one

of the workers to show us how we had

failed. I think every effort should bemade to overcome this defect. I myself realize, my remoteness from theworkingclasB. It may be said that Iam a worker, too. but my ideology Isnot that of a worker in basic industry. and to try to adapt myself to itis something more or less artificiel. Idon't know how representative I amin this respect, but my representativeness would bespeak an unhealthy condition for a party that is the vanguard of the workingclaas.On Negro work: the figures of

Party membership are an appallingindication of the mistakes we havemade, but this subject perhaps needslesfc discussion because a* change ofattitude is apparent. We are havingthe sense to recognize that the Negropeople are going ahead and that we

must go ahead with them instead oftrying at this time to lead them.Everything should be done to strengthen that aspect of the work.

Both of the above subjects are rela

ted to the over-all problem of the lack

of education. I have known of only one

club that tried to tackle it. Our educa

tion has too often been confined to

topical material in political affairs andour understanding of Uie use of it dependent upon the degree of development of the club members. Usually we

make an effort to make some application Of these articles to our day-to-day activity, but it's an effort thatis handicapped, to begin with, by thelack of systematic basic education.Very often our so-called educationals

-have largely to do with current events,with a presentation of the position weought to take toward them withoutour having an understanding of WHTwe should take that position. This encourages bureaucmcy, direction fromthe top down, vrith the membershipaccepting a line and trying to applyit. We must take hold of the questionof education, especially theoreticaleducation, instead of choosing an ar-

f

tide from PA and consider that sufficient.

Lack of education accounts for lackof integration of members who ■ aregood Communists but not Marxist-Leninists, and in this sense they ai-enot as good Communists as theyshould be — people who are on thefiring li>e but make a mess of theirprivate lives. The proper kind of Communist education should attempt totackle this kind of separation of ourpersonal attitudes from our politicalattitudes. Our middleclaas thinking isin part responsible. We don't have thegoals that workers do. We are moresubject to these weaknesses on accountof our equivocal position between theworkers and the petty bourgeoisie,prey to nationalizations and having tomake a continyoualy conscious effortto avoid being' seduced Ideologically.

AS FAR AS our agitational work

is concerned — though we certainly

must not cease to criticize injusticesand to raise the grievances of thewprkingclass—it has been far too negative. We are always tearing something down rather than pointing to

strengths and to traditions that canstrengthen us. This is similar to thepoint that'Max Weiss made in sayingthat we must rediscover America; but

it is more than that, too. We shouldtalk more about socialism outside ourown circles. There has been too muchallusion to the Soviet Union, and thisnaturally makes us prey to the chargeof being agents of a foreign power.We have plenty of examples to drawfrom — one-third of the world. Wespeak of the eastern democracies instead of the socialist-countries.

We do not give enough time and

thought to local conditions. Whenever

a local issue has been raised it has

had repercussions much wider than theissue itseK, reaching more people, withthe possibility of our involving themin furOier issues without hammeringat international issues, such as tradewith the Soviet Union, etc. Not thatthese international issues are not im-uottant; they are. But we often missthe boat by neglecting neighborhoodIssues that. If properly hnndlcd, couldbear fruit later in building a unitedfront. We must broaden our wojk.

—LOS ANGELES.

Party Forum 3

I BELIEVB the woman question isthe key to a peoples' freedom. The economic condition of its women is thekey to a peoples' freedom.When the majority of the people,

the women, are not equal in jobs andpolitical status, a people is not free.

Thff largest group of women, theNegro women, are the lowest paid andunorganized group in our country. Inany big city the largest group thatuses the public transit system is theNegro women. They hare no rightsthat anyone is bound to recognize,even their men in their own families.

Oftentimes it is tlieir brother who

gets the education if the funds areshort and both cannot go to college orany higher educational institution.In most Negro homes both man and

wife have to take a job. Then, very,often, the. woman can only get a live-in job where she is on call twenty-four hours per day. The pay is neverenough for her to keep up a real homeso she usually has to stay with friendson her one day off per week. Manycouples cannot live in harmony withthis arrangement and their marriagebreaks up.Some of my white friends think the

white women are free now and we

hare no more need for union and other

groups to help them get equality. I saythe white woman is not free either.

She has a little better chance of a jobbut in many cases the wage is notequal to her brother or husband. Sheis held back, too, and sometimes helpsto undermine her Negro sister's chance

The womanquestion

to a better job because she docs notsee her responsibility.

The women of oppressed peoplessuffer a double oppression for theyshare not only the oppression commonto all of their p;ople but also sufferoppression by their own men which isespecially severe among oppreaedpeoples with low economic and socialstandards. The status of peasantwomen in pre-revolution Russia andChina and of Negro women in the U. S.are examples.

WE SEE in socialist countries assoon as Industry Is talten over by theworkers, the women soon become free.They are no longer dependent on aman or husband for their living.Women take pride In any work mencan do, except maybe the heavy physical labor which takes more strengththan a woman has. Women can learnanything men can. The mental equipment in each sex is the same. It isonly a matter of getting the chance toprove one's self.

Is 'correctparty line'an idealist concept?I WANT to touch on our party's er

rors once more, not because I enjoypicking at scabs cr irritating a woundbut because errors are the most Important reason why we arc having a convention. discussions, a draft resolu

tion (hereinafter called d. r.) and a

dissenting view hereinafter called d. v.(1 have seen only one dissent so far,that of Foster on Aug. 23.)

I want specifically to call attentionto the idealist concept of the "correctparty line" and its two medieval scholastic offspring: "Politics by micrometer calipcr or crystal ball." and "poll-tics on the high horse or high wire."The d. r. is an example of micrometricpolitics,- the d. V. of equilibristic poll-tics. According to the d. r. the errorsof the party have been errors characteristic of an inexperienced stock-market counsellor, crystal-ball gazer orA'Ctioneer; In d. v. they have beenthe kinds of errors that discourage ouryouth from the profession of tightropeacrobatics.

In the d. r., emphasis is on preciseappraisal: in the ;l. v., precise balance.In the 3',4 pages of the d. r. dealingwith errors and weaknesses (pp. 43-6)occur the following phrases:). ( estimate (-ing, -ed, -ion), 6 times.) . ( underestimate (-ing. etc.), 3 times.).( overestimate (-ed. etc.), 3 times.) • ( assess (-ment, etc.), 3 times) • ( evaluation 1 time) . ( appraised 1 time) • ( size up 1 time

FOR EXAMPLE, it berates theparty for having failed to "asesa cor- .rectly" the year of the econonvic bustdue to follow the current boom—neverquestioning whether sooth-sayIng isits proper business. As for the d. v.. Its27 pages are peppered with so manylefts and rights that its could be mistaken for an account of a prizefight.It assumes that our party la something lige the White Knight In Alicein Wonderland, addicted to falling offhU horse to left or right, and it dedicates itself to the endless task of getting him back in the saddle — apparently never suspecting that ridinghorseback is perhaps not his propervocation.

I'm not here arguing which aide islighter or wronger; I'U speak on thatelsewhere. What I want to point outhere is that in both documents partymistakes are regarded as -slight quantitative inadequacies^ (e.g., sharing theAmerican Philistinism, contempt forand even hostility to culture and cultural factors In the social dynamic).And both documents leave moral

factors out completely, long as theyare, and recent as are our painfulmemories of what happened in theUSSR for lack of respect for socialistmorality.

However, neither culture nor moral

ity is my main subject. I want to con

tend that a "correct line," in the ab

solutist and intolerant sense that we

Communists have used it up to and including this d. r. and d. v., is an Idealist concept that must be abandoned. Iwant us to admit, in public as well asIn private, that perhaps we do not 'know the exact and final truth aboutpolitics, economics, social organization, the problems of youth, Negroes,Jews, women, Amerindians, organizedlabor, unorganized labor, art, literature, music, the mass media of com-mimication, military strategy andtactics, philosophy, chemistry, physics,anthropology, linguistics — and theirilk! What we do know as Marxists (orshould) are certain broad movements,certain tendencies and probabilities,which are not clearly perceived bythose unlearned in Marxism. But so

long as we pretend to exact knowledge when in fact we are only guessing, so: long shall we be obliged toflagellate ourselves in public for ourimderestimations, overestimations, incorrect assessments, faulty evaluations, wrong appraisals and failures tosize up.

OUR THINKma that Marxismeqxiips us to be micrometrlsts, equilibrists or prophets. Is not only an idealistic error philosophically but a sin ofvanity morally: and we should snapout of it right now while we are inthe "outsnappingof mood." We shouldsee that there is no difference of principle between the d. r. and d. v. on (forexample) the postwar policy of fighting for peace and against the threatof fascism. But while the d. r. "estimates" that we "overestimated" certain factors and "underestimated" others too subtle for our micrometer calipers to measure "correctly," the d. v.observed in our posture a "right tendency" here, a "left sectarian" positionthere — and even on occasion "leftopportunism" and "right sectarian-Ism"! — which, we are solemnly assured, caused the White Knight to falloff his horse so often it's a wonderhe's still alive.

What kind of disease la this? jfWewant to be perfect as our heavenlyfather is perfect? Are we Fundaipen-tallsts? Revivalists? Tolmudista?^X do not wish to be understood as

Too often the children bom to acouple are considered the responsibilityof the mother. Very often the motherhas to work hard all day, then comehome and cook, wash and Iron for thechildren and her husband. A tired,frustrated mother is not good for thechildren. So we find unhappy children.Their whole lives are affected by theconditions in their homes. Our mostprecious gift to our society is our children, and yet they are made to befelt unwanted very early in life because no one wants them around.

In the U, S. success'is measured bythe amount of show you make withyour money and gadgets, like cars,homes and television sets.

War and talk of war is very costlyto our people and all such activities arebrutalizing to our children and youth.They leam early to kill and to causesuffering. Little boys have been knownto kill their playmates by hanging.They see such things in the moviesand so-called funny books and television. The capitalist system depends on

profits and there is no profit In rising children.

OUR LEADERS are spending billions on war and only a few milliortaon education, with the result that our-teachers are iow paid and subject toall sorts of restrictions like loyaltyoaths and are afraid to teach the truthto our children. Our country is fastbecoming a nation of illiterates. So,I say, if the conditions are not changedsoon the mothers in our country willhave a worse lot than they now haveand certainly we do not want that.Our women must bo educated andtrained In youth to take good-payingjobs and belong to strong unions, andthe unions must be progressive in thatthey organize all women and men regardless of race, creed, color or political convictions. All unions should havean apprentice program to train theyouth and an educational program fortheir members for upgrading in jobs.There Is another condition to em

ployment for both men and womenand that Is age. A woman over fortyyears of age is considered too old formost jobs. She has to appear youngand pretty. No mater how capable'she is if she looks past forty, no job.That is why some women use dye ontheir hair and other means to lookyounger. Hair dye has been known tokill a woman when used over a longperiod. If women attain their economicequality, their social equality will follow very shortly.

R. L., Oalilond.

Present the factsbefore the conclusions

(Concluded from losf issue)If we only examine the last ten

years by. itself, we do so with oneeye closed. If we begin to talk in adetailed way, about what has beenhappening to us and what did we leamfrom It . . . we will not be able tostart at 1048 as though that was theyear life began.

Considering the range of subjectsin Dennis' pamphlet, its obvious thathe couldn't have encompassed suchexhaustive studies in that work. Butthen what is the true value of these■hodge-podge" type pamphlets thatspecialize in generalities?

Also, it might not be feasible tot-. . . all ai. ojicc and go into everycorner of our long history right now.But why not at once select some ofthe more fundamental aspects: labor,economics: national que-stion; theparty's structure — and do a reallytherough job of it!

I think our leaders are so abstractand mechanical because they are sofar removed personally from the eventsthey analyze and lecture about. Butit Is not only our leaders who do this.And here 1 believe is the rock-bottomreasons why we've been such blind-followers: (indeed we're the buildingbrides for the whole structure of unscientific thinking and bureaucracy).If we fail to demand, both from leadersand ourselves, that our Ideas, plansand activities be solidly based on thefacts of life, how can we ever he"qualified to judge" (isn't that theway we always excused our inability

sneering at the struggle for exactknowledge or informed judgments, forof such is human salvation. On thecontrary, my target is the vain pretense thereto, the swindling grab forcredit where no credit is due, the ar-i-ogant ignorance that holds backprogress, My plea is for humility —not a groveling, 'umble humility butone hai'dly to be distinguished from adecent pride — the dignified humilityof the people.

BE rr' THEREFORE RESOLVEDtha we Communists overthrow all suchidealist hokum by ail the force andviolence left in our Twentieth-Con-greas-weary brains and return to dialectical materialism—and if we don'tknow what that Is or how it operateswe'd better damn well start studyingbecause we're 40 years late.

H. A., LOS ANGELES.

to understand an idea; or our disagreement with some aspect of theprogram. . . we weren't as big Marxists as Browder, or Foster or Dennis,etc.)

This is a 'hope and a prayer' thatthose many many people who havemore connections with everyday lifeas it is lived in the USA than we'vehad for years, will write with facts,about our ideas, plans and conclusions.When this develops more and more,then I think we'll stop swinging withthe pendulum from left to right andback again, with every shift in theactivities of the ruling class.

Such a time it - is, when many ofus seem to be walking around with10 . .. 15 . . . 20 years of our livesstuck up there in the air waiting forwhat will happen at the national con-vejition. But vital as that conventionwUl be, it will not necessarily solvethe problem for many of us, of ourrelationship to our Commrnist movement For some it will take longer^and for' some they may reach theirconclusions before the convention . . .depending upon our backgrounds, experiences and our present situationsin life.

For myself — my anchor is my determination to struggle for a Socialistmovement in the United States thatwill be capable of leading our countryto Socialism. And my decisions aboutthis Communist movement must boguided by whether it adheres to thatgoal.

L.—LOS ANGELES

II

4- Party Forum