I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for with a question phrased like this. If the answer was yes, what would the conclusion be? Who would have evidence strong enough to support such a notion anyway? It's a bit of a contradictory thing in the first place; if a party is controlled opposition, how is it a communist party at that point? You could go by which parties call themselves communist in the name, but not all with communist intentions will do so. PSL, for example, being called Party for Socialism and Liberation, not Party for Communism and Liberation. DSA also calls itself Socialist, but unlike PSL, I'm not confident of its positions being communist. Dem socs seem to be aligned more with reform, historically, and underestimate the state's monopoly on violence (if anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on DSA, feel free to say, I'm just using it as an example as a contrast to PSL to make a point). You could go by which parties have a communist program, but if they have a communist program and are actually doing it, how can they be controlled opposition at that point?
It is probably safe to assume every well known anti-imperialist or communist effort in the US has some monitoring or infiltration going on, or at least attempts to do so. But to entertain the idea they are compromised on the whole is sort of silly. Even if one were to demonstrate a particular party's leadership is some form of controlled opposition, it wouldn't necessarily mean every group organizing under that party's name is subject to the same problems. This line of thinking could quickly lead to a kind of paranoia and defeatism if not grounded in step by step analysis. The US is powerful, but it is not all-powerful.
I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for with a question phrased like this. If the answer was yes, what would the conclusion be? Who would have evidence strong enough to support such a notion anyway? It's a bit of a contradictory thing in the first place; if a party is controlled opposition, how is it a communist party at that point? You could go by which parties call themselves communist in the name, but not all with communist intentions will do so. PSL, for example, being called Party for Socialism and Liberation, not Party for Communism and Liberation. DSA also calls itself Socialist, but unlike PSL, I'm not confident of its positions being communist. Dem socs seem to be aligned more with reform, historically, and underestimate the state's monopoly on violence (if anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on DSA, feel free to say, I'm just using it as an example as a contrast to PSL to make a point). You could go by which parties have a communist program, but if they have a communist program and are actually doing it, how can they be controlled opposition at that point?
It is probably safe to assume every well known anti-imperialist or communist effort in the US has some monitoring or infiltration going on, or at least attempts to do so. But to entertain the idea they are compromised on the whole is sort of silly. Even if one were to demonstrate a particular party's leadership is some form of controlled opposition, it wouldn't necessarily mean every group organizing under that party's name is subject to the same problems. This line of thinking could quickly lead to a kind of paranoia and defeatism if not grounded in step by step analysis. The US is powerful, but it is not all-powerful.