Our convention is the CPUSA's highest decision-making body. Tune in to hear the main report from co-chair Joe Sims as we plan ahead for the fight against mon...
He is trying to "block" Trump and prevent another Reagan, which he lived through.
Reagan is literally to Biden's left on the genocide. Reagan actually picked up the phone, told the Israelis they were conducting a holocaust, and they stopped.
I don't think Biden has full control over the Israelis in this case, though he could do much more than what he's doing, but I think that Trump would just double-down on the genocide and make it harder to organize in the United States with Project 2025.
I'm sorry, this is a dodge. You defended Sims by claiming he's trying to prevent Reagan, who did more with one single phone call than Joe Biden has done in nine months of murder. Reagan would be an improvement over Biden as regards Gaza, full stop.
Reagan is dead and Trump would be worse than Biden, I feel. I already live in a red state. It is much worse than when it was blue. Glenn Youngkin is ever worse than Trump.
Trump would be like Reagan in that he would herald another conservative "revolution" in his midst.
Then please thread the needle for me here. You say Trump would be worse than Biden, and you consider preventing Trump to be of the highest importance. How does that inform actions?
I know you're kind of busy with other things, but this all still bothers me quite a lot. Of course the people decide, they always do, but it is the job of the vanguard party to try to lead them to the best decision. Saying "Oops, vote as you will" is tailism, it is failing to lead, and what they are actually saying, "Vote to stop Trump getting elected" is overtly reactionary because anyone with two brain cells understands this to be a direction to vote for Biden. This unconditional support of the Democratic Party is in service of the maintenance of neoliberalism, no matter how nice you think the guy's speeches are
Edit: Just to avoid spamming you:
Trump will do the genocide as well and probably double-down
You and every liberal says this, but how do you justify it? How can you say Trump will do more when Biden already sends tens of billions of "lethal aid" to Israel? You're just assuming that if Biden sends X, Trump will send 2X, but I have never seen any substantiation for this claim even though liberals constantly make it.
I am not a liberal though. This was done with analysis and Trump is a staunch Zionist and has even voiced support for Netanyahu, unrelenting support, even as Biden at least puts in a word about genocide.
So I can understand the Communist Party's position to not repeat the same mistake they made in the 1980s with allowing Reagan to win.
It was wrong of us to run in Presidential elections and not try to help block Reagan.
even as Biden at least puts in a word about genocide.
This is a joke, it's pure kayfabe to mitigate the PR issue of supporting something so unpopular. He's not actually doing anything substantial and has, time and again, also voiced "unrelenting support", as someone who was a staunch Zionist before most users on this board were born. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Nrv5izaTs
So I can understand the Communist Party's position to not repeat the same mistake they made in the 1980s with allowing Reagan to win.
It was wrong of us to run in Presidential elections and not try to help block Reagan.
You are revisionists, pure and simple. You are pursuing socdem goals at the expense of building a revolutionary movement, giving unconditional concessions to neoliberal ghouls instead of even attempting to extract concessions.
Our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.
Karl Marx, “Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action”
No matter whatever disingenuous weaseling you try to do about not "supporting" Biden, your organization is one of massively tailist revisionism in the interest of maintaining neoliberal institutions.
Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Address of the Central Comittee to the Communist League, 1850
The Democrats are facilitators of the regular "most important election of our lifetime" crises, not a mitigating element. If they were a mitigating element they would not, at every moment, being laying further groundwork for rightward lurching and the destruction of civil liberties.
If you were anti genocide then why would you support the guy doing the genocide?
Also you clearly didn't even read the linked article where the dude blames the Palestinians for what's going on right now.
Also I am not going to try to block Trump at the cost of THE ENTIRE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. Sure we shouldn't want Trump to be president but more than that I don't want to support am ongoing genocide.
I understand pragmatism I really do but you absolutely need to check yourself when your pragmatism comes at the cost of AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP
Yes, they will support someone doing a genocide to block trump. You have some kind of weird contradiction that you can't seem to recognize where you think you can support Biden as an act against Trump while selectively not supporting Biden's genocide.
This is not possible. You can't have it both ways.
Trump will do the genocide as well and probably double-down. We are not supporting Biden.
We have a gun pressed to our heads and we need to maintain relations with activist groups on the ground are Democratic-aligned or that tend to vote Democrat.
By supporting Democrats at the local level and municipalities and voting for Biden, but that's up to the individual members and districts; at the end of the day, it's basically just a suggestion, and many I know won't even vote for Biden (many will, of course, but you get the point).
Ok, this seems contradictory to me. Democratic centralism isn't your strategy, but it is how you function. Can you please elaborate? What actually are you saying here and how isn't it a contradiction to have something be both "how you function" and yet also "not a part of party strategy"?
Oh you're right of course. I've read the rest of the thread, but still, I couldn't resist trying to pin him down on something. I was mostly curious to see exactly what kind of weasel speak I'd get in response, you know?
Well this is awkward
how could comprador party USA do this
What about it?
I don't mind, tbh.
You don't mind that CPUSA supports genocide and is telling their members to also actively support genocide? For real?
I don't think the CPUSA said that.
Did you read the link? Does the party co chair not represent the party?
He is indeed a representative of the party.
I don't think he said that we should support a genocide. I've talked with him a few times. He is very much against the genocide.
Then why did he say to support the guy who is funding and supporting the genocide? Why did he condemn the victims of the genocide?
He did not condemn the victims of the genocide. We are anti-genocide, especially against the genocide of the Palestinians.
And Joe Sims does not support Biden. He is trying to "block" Trump and prevent another Reagan, which he lived through.
We've actually been gaining new applications since the start of the convention.
I hope that you will at least consider the other side of the story here.
Reagan is literally to Biden's left on the genocide. Reagan actually picked up the phone, told the Israelis they were conducting a holocaust, and they stopped.
I don't think Biden has full control over the Israelis in this case, though he could do much more than what he's doing, but I think that Trump would just double-down on the genocide and make it harder to organize in the United States with Project 2025.
I'm sorry, this is a dodge. You defended Sims by claiming he's trying to prevent Reagan, who did more with one single phone call than Joe Biden has done in nine months of murder. Reagan would be an improvement over Biden as regards Gaza, full stop.
I assure you it's not a dodge.
Reagan is dead and Trump would be worse than Biden, I feel. I already live in a red state. It is much worse than when it was blue. Glenn Youngkin is ever worse than Trump.
Trump would be like Reagan in that he would herald another conservative "revolution" in his midst.
So you're endorsing a vote for Biden, is that correct?
I am not.
Then please thread the needle for me here. You say Trump would be worse than Biden, and you consider preventing Trump to be of the highest importance. How does that inform actions?
I think it's up to the people to decide. I'll vote for Claudia de la Cruz, as I've said elsewhere.
I think if your primary intent is to prevent Trump, voting third party does not make rational sense.
This is just my personal decision; I know others will vote for Biden.
I know you're kind of busy with other things, but this all still bothers me quite a lot. Of course the people decide, they always do, but it is the job of the vanguard party to try to lead them to the best decision. Saying "Oops, vote as you will" is tailism, it is failing to lead, and what they are actually saying, "Vote to stop Trump getting elected" is overtly reactionary because anyone with two brain cells understands this to be a direction to vote for Biden. This unconditional support of the Democratic Party is in service of the maintenance of neoliberalism, no matter how nice you think the guy's speeches are
Edit: Just to avoid spamming you:
You and every liberal says this, but how do you justify it? How can you say Trump will do more when Biden already sends tens of billions of "lethal aid" to Israel? You're just assuming that if Biden sends X, Trump will send 2X, but I have never seen any substantiation for this claim even though liberals constantly make it.
I am not a liberal though. This was done with analysis and Trump is a staunch Zionist and has even voiced support for Netanyahu, unrelenting support, even as Biden at least puts in a word about genocide.
So I can understand the Communist Party's position to not repeat the same mistake they made in the 1980s with allowing Reagan to win.
It was wrong of us to run in Presidential elections and not try to help block Reagan.
This is a joke, it's pure kayfabe to mitigate the PR issue of supporting something so unpopular. He's not actually doing anything substantial and has, time and again, also voiced "unrelenting support", as someone who was a staunch Zionist before most users on this board were born. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Nrv5izaTs
You are revisionists, pure and simple. You are pursuing socdem goals at the expense of building a revolutionary movement, giving unconditional concessions to neoliberal ghouls instead of even attempting to extract concessions.
No matter whatever disingenuous weaseling you try to do about not "supporting" Biden, your organization is one of massively tailist revisionism in the interest of maintaining neoliberal institutions.
The Democrats are facilitators of the regular "most important election of our lifetime" crises, not a mitigating element. If they were a mitigating element they would not, at every moment, being laying further groundwork for rightward lurching and the destruction of civil liberties.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
If you were anti genocide then why would you support the guy doing the genocide?
Also you clearly didn't even read the linked article where the dude blames the Palestinians for what's going on right now.
Also I am not going to try to block Trump at the cost of THE ENTIRE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. Sure we shouldn't want Trump to be president but more than that I don't want to support am ongoing genocide.
I understand pragmatism I really do but you absolutely need to check yourself when your pragmatism comes at the cost of AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP
We do not support the person doing the genocide. We are trying to block Trump.
Also, I don't think he blamed the Palestinians.
And voting for Biden is not supporting a genocide, though I won't vote for Biden.
fuck off
I mean in the sense that many want to block Trump from enacting Project 2025.
Yes, they will support someone doing a genocide to block trump. You have some kind of weird contradiction that you can't seem to recognize where you think you can support Biden as an act against Trump while selectively not supporting Biden's genocide.
This is not possible. You can't have it both ways.
Trump will do the genocide as well and probably double-down. We are not supporting Biden.
We have a gun pressed to our heads and we need to maintain relations with activist groups on the ground are Democratic-aligned or that tend to vote Democrat.
This is an incoherent position and is deeply unserious.
It is not.
This is not how argumentation or even reasoning works. Try to be more serious.
I am serious though. I'm not arguing.
I don't want to be cruel but isn't your mother in the hospital at this very moment, why are you talking about this....
I wasn't.
...and how do you 'block Trump'? Quit dodging!
By supporting Democrats at the local level and municipalities and voting for Biden, but that's up to the individual members and districts; at the end of the day, it's basically just a suggestion, and many I know won't even vote for Biden (many will, of course, but you get the point).
So do you or don't you practice Democratic Centralism? Is that or isn't that the party strategy?
Yes, it is.
No, democratic centralism is not apart of party strategy; it's just how we function.
Ok, this seems contradictory to me. Democratic centralism isn't your strategy, but it is how you function. Can you please elaborate? What actually are you saying here and how isn't it a contradiction to have something be both "how you function" and yet also "not a part of party strategy"?
It’s weasel speak. These people are sycophants, you won’t get a coherent answer just soup that spins in circles
Oh you're right of course. I've read the rest of the thread, but still, I couldn't resist trying to pin him down on something. I was mostly curious to see exactly what kind of weasel speak I'd get in response, you know?