- cross-posted to:
- communism@lemmy.ml
- cpusa@lemmygrad.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5141613
From the Tweet:
"The Communist Party USA is saddened to learn about the passing of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong. Our Party sends condolences to all members of the Communist Party of Vietnam and to all the people of Vietnam."
Definitely true in some digital circles like Hexbear. This hasn't been my experience on the ground, however.
It seems to me that, in cases like this, the discussions are initially framed from either a place of misunderstanding or malintent. It's a pretty fundamental fact that this resolution was not passed.
We define a "People's Front" or "Popular Front" as an alliance on specific issues, and the alliance is not necessarily based on class character. This is opposed to a "United Front," which is a more stable and permanent coalition of united working class orgs. It can be other communists, labor activists, liberals, Democrats, and other progressive groups.
Locally we have worked with progressive democrats, student orgs, housing activists, and even Catholic orgs on things like specific housing issues (e.g. property millage for funding local housing insecurity services) and forcing our city and county officials to call for a ceasefire in Palestine.
If we committed to blocking a Trump presidency, it should be a strategic one off, not subordination to a party that enforces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Finally, we do not see the Democratic Party as a fascist organization. We define fascism using the comintern's definition as presented by Georgi Dmitrov: "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital".
This is not an excuse for the imperialist, settler-colonial, bourgeois-subservient Democratic Party, but there is a material difference between fascism and neoliberal orthodoxy. The conditions for organizing the masses becomes much more difficult when there is a ramp up in censorship, imprisonment, and outright executions of communists. This philosophy of "Social Fascism," where modern social democracy and fascism are equated, in part caused the communists to remove themselves from the masses and underestimate fascism. It led to a failure to prevent fascism in Bulgaria, Poland, Finland, and Germany pre-1935, hence the comintern's analysis.
I fail to see the distinction, particularly, when the Democratic Party is in full support of the genocide in Gaza.
Are we equating the Democratic Party with social democracy now?
It is oft said that "fascism is imperialism turned inwards," no? Again, it is a material difference of the conditions in which we mobilize the masses and build a revolution.
The Communist Party of Poland also didn't see the difference, they saw Pilsudiki's coup of 1926 as a simple bourgeois vs bourgeois conflict. When the new regime curtailed the powers of parliament, and pursued policies of censorship and suppression of leftist activities, the party changed its tune. But it was far too late - the ability to mobilize and communicate had been crushed.
Well, in pre-1935 Europe it was indeed the Social Democrats. But in terms of this specific function, the difference between the material conditions under a class-collaborationist party and an outright fascist party, yes I think the comparison is apt.
It is a failure of solidarity to ally, even tactically, with a genocidal regime, simply on the assumption that domestic conditions will be better for organizing. Moreover, yes, the Democratic Party has shown time and again that they are willing and eager to use the full, repressive force of state terror on the left. The numerous links between the military, the police, the intelligence apparatus and the genocidal regime in Israel are exactly the fascism coming home from the frontier and it is happening under the merely class collaborationist Democrats
Agreed. I'm not arguing that electing democrats stops fascism. The Democratic Party is complicit in the rise of fascism. What I am arguing, is blocking a Trump presidency as the resolution proposed helps mitigate an existential threat to building a revolution, an all powerful unitary executive, and an increasingly radical right-wing legislature that dismantles civil rights.
And it doesn't and shouldn't be done through a public advocation for the Democratic Party. For example, engaging in something like voter registration canvassing, and advocating for pro-worker ballot proposals, diminishes the likelihood of a Trump presidency, and more importantly, builds connections with other groups and the workers themselves.
Not an assumption, an observation that fits a historical pattern. And not just organizing - it is existential. The president now being legally completely above the law will only embolden capital, and the consolidation and expansion of the executive's powers will make it all the easier to escalate suppression against us and our comrades.
But, those are my thoughts as to the positives of such a resolution. It didn't pass, and if the National Committee does pass a revised version, I'll be very interested to see the changes.
How?
You mean the thing that is done under both parties, including right now?
What is the 'historical pattern'?