Living in an Era of Change

4125 800x4

The 29th CPUSA Convention was a big success and will hopefully go a long way toward improving the party’s contributions to the democratic movement.  The strategic policy of uniting all the core forces and movements to defeat the ultra-right and consolidate the people’s coalition was resoundingly re-endorsed by the delegates.  The quality of the discussion both before and at the convention reflected the hard work that members are involved in on the ground and a willingness to do the kind of hard thinking necessary to match it. 

Recent articles in Political Affairs and People’s World show that the party’s process of confronting contemporary political challenges and looking for ways to move forward did not end when the convention adjourned in New York.

In their Political Affairs article, “Radical Ideas, Real Politics,” Joel Wendland and Peter Zerner launched a discussion of why Marxism remains an “essential, objective, and working-class-based” methodology for analyzing and meeting the tasks that lie ahead.  I agree with the authors’ premises and in this article hope to draw attention to the need to think anew about organizational and communication issues.  While this is of course an inwardly-focused matter, it has important ramifications for our ability to turn our “radical ideas” into “real politics.”  Particularly, this has to do with the way we communicate our message to America’s working people, how we envision our approach to electoral politics, and our relationship to other organizations on the center and left.

Wendland and Zerner said, “There are no past experiences in other societies which can serve as models for today’s complexities, contradictions, and possibilities.”  The party has rightly determined that any future socialism in our country will be uniquely American, in tune with the history, experience, and traditions of the U.S. people. Bringing our organization into accord with our vision of what socialism will be and how it will come to the United States means rethinking how the CPUSA presents itself.


For more than ten years now, the party has been taking a hard look at its ideology, organizational structure, personnel requirements, and financial accounting and made the decisions necessary to ensure the survival of the organization.

The Marxism that is now practiced in the CPUSA and learned at YCL schools is an open, innovative, and creative methodology that has – to a great extent – left behind the dogmatism and sectarianism of what passed for ‘Marxism-Leninism’ in the past.

The structures of the national office and the various departments of the party have been reorganized and reconfigured to more efficiently carry out the tasks entrusted to them.  Instances of repetition of responsibilities and overlapping assignments have been remedied in many situations. This of course led in some cases to personnel consolidation and a lowering of staff requirements.

On the financial front, for too many years the party had been eating into the financial legacy left to it by previous generations, thereby jeopardizing its future survival.  Thanks to the work of the finance department, our organization is now on a much firmer footing and lives within its means.

None of these were easy challenges, but to its credit the party and its leadership have been up to the task.  I think that our process of renewal should continue moving forward no matter how difficult we may find it.  With that said, I turn to what I feel to still be a key, but unaddressed, issue.


The Communist Party USA has a 90-year history which its members can take pride in. From the struggles for industrial organization during the Depression to the defense of civil liberties against McCarthyism’s attacks, and from the fights against racism to the struggles for peace, the party has shown itself time and time again to be a steadfast fighter for the interests of the American working class and people.  The pages of the party’s history are filled with such chapters.  These proud traditions should never be forgotten. 

However, the organization cannot live on its laurels forever.  A way must be found to build on these traditions while also making the CPUSA a political organization that is suited to meet the political needs of today.

The party has to be brave enough to collectively face up to the reality that, no matter how correct it may be when it comes to theory or strategy and tactics, as long as it bears the name ‘Communist Party’, it will be cutting itself off from large numbers of progressive activists and leaders.  Many on the left agree with the CPUSA’s emphasis on center-left unity, its focus on defeating the ultra-right, and its approach to political independence. 

Communism, though, is equated with names such as Stalin, Ceausescu, and Mao in the popular consciousness.  Unfortunately, names such as DuBois, Winston, or Flynn do not pop into the minds of most people.  The communist ‘brand’ is undeniably sullied beyond reprieve for the vast majority of Americans.  Pleading with people to allow us to explain what communism is really about is a pretty useless and time-wasting tactic.  The struggle for a better future – a socialist future – does not have to (and should not) always result in a debate about the Soviet experiment. 

In a recent letter to the editor of the Morning Star, the newspaper associated with the CP of Britain, a reader expressed clearly the same types of points when attempting to persuade his comrades it was time to change the party’s name: “We can continue to roar from inside our ghetto but no one will listen if we don’t change our language.” He continued, “Our aim should be to communicate with people on their level, not seek to maintain a spurious purity of dogma” (Morning Star letters, 16 May 2010).

As much as it may hurt for many members to admit, no organization named the Communist Party will be a part of the mainstream of American politics. The CPUSA came closest to that in the 1930s and 40s, but that success is unlikely to be repeated.  Too much history has happened since then: McCarthyism, the Stalin revelations, the Cold War, fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the CP-ruled states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Communism is a brand tarnished beyond repair in the United States.

A few critical readers of this article will undoubtedly charge that I am guilty of “American Exceptionalism” – the old criticism hurled against CP leaders who sought a more nationally-specific path to socialism.  The party is an American institution dealing with the political challenges of the modern United States.  If our theories, strategy, and tactics were not uniquely American, then we would be of no use to the working class. As Wendland and Zerner said, we are trying to reach America’s working people – “our constituency.”

While history may eventually call upon a political organization to complete the historic tasks associated with a communist party by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, that period of time is not upon us.  John Case made this observation when in a recent PA article he said that naming the party communist “before such time as the tasks of constructing a society reflecting the communist ideal are fully prepared, is premature.” (Reflections on the 29th Convention of the CPUSA, June 2010

His point gets right to the heart of the matter.  To simply sit satisfied in our small organization called the Communist Party and take comfort in the conviction that history will push us to the fore is to live in a fantasy world. It does a disservice not only to our own political effectiveness, but to the larger movement that needs the kind of insights into theory, strategy, and tactics that we can help develop. We have to remove this obstacle from our full participation in the democratic struggles of our time.

Many Communist Parties around the world went about transforming themselves at times of crisis, when they were no longer in tune with the broad trends of progressive politics in their countries or their bases of support were shrinking. The CPUSA, though small, does not find itself in such a condition.  We are relatively united and making a positive contribution to the broad people’s coalition in our country.

We should take advantage of this situation to undergo a more thorough renewal.  The crisis of socialism is now twenty years passed, and conditions have developed which make it possible for the CPUSA to become a more outwardly-oriented socialist organization.

As Sam Webb said in his report to the 29th Convention, “Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel…If it has an ‘old or foreign’ feel, people will reject it.” I think this insight should be expanded beyond just our vision of socialism as expressed in our statements and publications; it should include our “brand,” so to speak.  If people are turned off by the name on the label, it is unlikely they will take too much time to see what is inside the package.

Just as the Soviet model of socialism always had that foreign feel for the vast majority of Americans, so too does the name Communist Party. We can argue over whether this is due more to decades of red-baiting, propaganda, and repression or to the less-than-sterling historical record of many governments run by Communist Parties.  At this point in history that does not matter for purposes of what our organization should call itself.  The causes of anti-communism should of course continue to be investigated by historians, but when our members are on the front-lines of the struggle against the ultra-right, do we really want the whole history of communism to be their primary hurdle? 

Our chief adversaries should be the ultra-right, not the general public’s preconceived notions of what communism is or was. Let’s jump more solidly into the mainstream of political struggle. We should project our vision of a more just, equitable, and solidaristic future (i.e. socialism) without making our coalition allies instantly associate us with all that was reprehensible about Stalinism.

In discussions I have had with some people, it has been stated that it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves, we would still be red-baited. That is almost certainly true.  However, it cannot be denied that red-baiting is a lot easier for the ultra-right demagogues like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh when we stubbornly stick to a name that may make us feel comfortable but does little to help us expand our influence.

An organization does not have to be called ‘Communist Party’ in order to be oriented toward socialism.  A change of name does not mean a change in principles. 

But changing the name is not just a pragmatic concern.  It should not be seen as simply switching the sign on the storefront. While we would be re-emphasizing the positive traditions we have always stood for – peace, equality, democracy, and socialism – we would also be publicly rejecting the negative traits associated with communist parties, particularly those of the Soviet bloc.  We would be declaring in the clearest way possible our rejection of the history of purges, repression, undemocratic practices, dictatorial power, and subordination that sullied the Soviet period.

Of course a change in name will not be some kind of panacea for the party’s long-standing problems of recruitment and retention. But over the years, people have overwhelmingly joined the CPUSA because of the work they see its members doing and the theoretical education that it provides. These are the key characteristics of our organization that would be preserved and hopefully expanded. Changing the name will not bring members pouring into the organization; that is not what I’m claiming. But given that the party has been a rather negligible force on the American political scene as a whole for at least the last several decades, we have to ask what benefit do we get from retaining a name from another era?

There is also the real possibility that if the name "Communist Party" is dropped, it will be picked up by some ultra-left formation or sect.  We can be sure that "Communist Party" would still be a hot brand on the sectarian left as demonstrated by the never-ending list of parties with the names containing the words socialist, labor, workers, communist, liberation, Marxist-Leninist, or some combination thereof. If we surrender the title, we would be taking a risk that some grouping with politics very different from those of the CPUSA would try to lay claim to not only the name but the history and the heritage that goes along with it.  While such a turn of events would perhaps not do justice to the party’s past, we have to decide whether it is more important to be loyal to a name or to our long-term goals – the real things that generations of party members have struggled for in our country.


Having dealt with the name issue, I would like to briefly comment on our efforts to dive more into the mainstream of progressive and left politics in the United States.  This means looking at questions of not just our name, but the type of organization we see ourselves to be. Is the CPUSA really a political party? Is it an organization or association of progressive working-class activists? What form would make us the most effective fighters for unity and social progress?

To deal with the first question, we have to ask not only whether the CPUSA is a political party, but we have to understand what a political party really is in the United States. The question here is not as simple to answer as it is in multi-party parliamentary systems, for instance. Generally, political parties in the latter types of systems are organizations contesting for office around an agreed ideological platform and having official membership rolls. Communist parties, though of course having their own unique characteristics such as democratic centralism and a revolutionary perspective, have historically been formed with such a system in mind. The CPUSA for instance, was formed as a political party in this sense.

But the two-party system of the United States does not fit neatly into this historical understanding of what parties are and what characteristics they have. In our country, as in many two-party states, the parties are coalitions of interests that broadly correlate to a right-left division, but which include people and forces of vastly differing classes, backgrounds, and goals. Political organization, especially as illustrated by the primary system for candidate selection, is relatively loose. 

What this means in practice is that the two parties have become institutions of a semi-governmental nature.  In order to win the majority of offices, candidates must pursue the nomination of one of the two main parties. For those on the left, this means contesting the Democratic primary process and engaging in the local Democratic platform development process. This is the only realistic way to bring progressive principles into electoral reality – definitely at the state and national level, and sometimes the local level as well.

The reactionary right accepted this reality more than 30 years ago and committed themselves to pursuing their aims through a shift in state power.  Without a doubt, they were largely successful.  The domination of the ultra right over much of the political life of our nation from roughly 1980 to 2008 has exemplified their victory.  The Republican Party, though always the defender of corporate interests, was not always the instrument of the Palin-Rand type of fringe elements which dominate today.

Not all elements of the progressive left have drawn the appropriate lessons from this historical development.  Sam Webb points this out in his article, “A Cautionary Tale” in People’s World. As he says, the lesson is simple: “The electoral arena is of overriding importance.  The notion that electoral politics has little progressive potential, that it is ‘politics lite,’ that it pales in the face of direct action (an unnecessary juxtaposition) is mistaken and harmful.”

Political independence has for quite some time, and increasingly in the recent period, been operationalized within the context of the two-party system.  Webb drew our attention to this in his keynote address to the party convention. He said:

New forms of political independence have developed in recent years in important ways, but differently than most of us on the left imagined.  To our surprise, they took shape within the framework of the two-party system, not outside of it, and within labor and other major social organizations, operating under the broad canopy of the Democratic Party.

I agree with Webb that if any alternative, independent third party ever emerges, these formations and organizations will be its basis.  I would stress even more, though, that we should look realistically at the openings for such a third party to develop. Serious electoral reform has not been on the table for decades and is not likely to appear on the popular agenda anytime soon. Efforts to operate in the electoral arena in opposition to both the Democratic and Republican parties only results in splitting the center-left vote and helping the right wing back into office. States or localities that allow fusion votes or alternative voting systems may be able to bypass this problem, but these local specificities cannot be the basis of a generalizable strategy.

Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it.  This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees.  More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.  

However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.

All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well. 

It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such.  By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates.  Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.  

So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice.  The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century.  It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times.  We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.


  • IMHO, communist parties should not engage in revisionist rethoric when the objective conditions for change are strong.
    Besides, communist parties are not mere electoral banners. The real issue is not to have people vote for the communist party, but to have them struggle for change. If people struggle for change, they will naturally want to know what the communists have to say about politics, about right, and about their society.
    Those who don't like to be in a party called "communist" should find another party. That's what I think. It's for that purpose that exist many parties.
    Please don't destroy the communist party of your country, because the peoples of all over the world need a communist organization in the USA so that the american masses can be redacallised and can consider objectively the tasks of real social change, thus rejecting the abstract promises of "freedom", that the bougeoisie and their lackeys use to bait workers.

    Posted by Epitácio Lemos, 03/01/2011 2:27pm (13 years ago)

  • So, C.J. wants to drop the name "Communist" and make the CPUSA into a non-party "Movement for Positive Change," or some such. Given this position, wouldn't it really be more consistent to break with the past completely, and to form a new organization altogether?

    Posted by JS, 02/13/2011 4:51am (13 years ago)

  • I understand your arguments CJ, but I don't accept them either strategically or ethically. We are in period of far reaching crisis where it is essential for us to maintain both unity and cohesion. It is also essential for us not to retreat in the face of anti-Communism at a time that its irrationality and destructiveness means that both more and more working people are rejecting it and reactionaries are more desperate and extrem ein its uses.
    Also successful movements, have both inside and outside wings--we have long struggled to develop a mass peoples party, which would have inside institutional power and advance the struggle of mass organizations, labor, civil rights, women's rights, much more effectively than currently exists, forcing the capitalist class to retreat and make major concessions to the working class, instead of advancing and forcing concessions from the working class, which it has for the last 30 years after a long period of stalemate connected to the cold war following WWII. What you suggest would make it harder in my opinon to do any of that; it would alienate longtime members like myself and not make it easier for us to recruit new members. It would also not advance us in mass organizations, since along with those who accept anti-Communism and seek to ignore us and deny our existence, there are many in my experiene who respect us because they know what we have accomplished as a party and also what we have done as individuals and work with us, taking us very seriously

    Posted by norman markowitz, 02/04/2011 12:55pm (13 years ago)

  • Regardless of our name, I don't think we should pretend to not be revolutionaries or Marxist-Leninists just because we're in the minority. If I wanted to belong to a social democrat group, I'd join DSA.
    I know there are different views on the correct balance between education and mass work, but I've always thought we should study the classics of Marx, Engels, and Lenin more than we do. While it is true that theory without practice is hollow, it's also true that practice without theory is blind.
    Following is a link to a classic work by Lenin (especially the first two chapters may be of interest).

    Posted by Brad, 12/06/2010 12:30am (13 years ago)

  • Wow.... there is a lot to think about here.
    My hope is that as we move ahead and our Party history rises to the surface (and it will) young people and future generations will set the record straight. That is my hope and dream.
    Fact is, I'm already witnessing this is small but significant ways!

    Posted by Gabriel Falsetta, 12/03/2010 3:14pm (13 years ago)

  • Let's cut to the chase. The discussion of a name change is a cover for incorrect policies and a justification for abandoning Marxism-Leninism and the working class. As we move further from communist/Marxist principles, the question of a name change just coincidently rises to the top. When I look at Party decisions of the last two years, I guess the question of a name change becomes very logical.

    At the time of the greatest upsurge of the working class in decades when the coalition that elected Obama was still unified and in motion, we postpone our national convention for one year. We couldn't wait just five months until the convention to have the membership decide on the printed press. We dissolved the Organizational Department. We have no ideological education. We have a national leader who in our major pre-convention document argued against the need for cadre. We have produced no Communist Party position papers. We have barely a skeleton national staff. Depending who you speak to we either have or not have a serious financial crisis. We have become so electoral-centric, we produce little between elections.

    This adds up to me believing that we are moving in the direction, if we are not already there, of a non-communist organization. Hence a name change is on the agenda.

    With regard to public acceptance of the term communist, I would hope that our older comrades would recall that since the McCarthy period, our Party's most rapid growth occurred when we did things in our name. You might recall the defense of Angela Davis, the several presidential campaigns, the several local campaigns and the several intermediary organizations tied closely to the Party. We grew then with the name Communist because we had sound and clear policies and we functioned as communists even in a period when the infection of McCarthy still existed.

    A name change itself will not restore us. It will fool no one

    The timing of this discussion is both dishonest and undemocratic. The question of a name change has been floated by leading Communists for several years. In some cases, I would argue it occurred in a whispering factional way. Rick Nagin did not whisper it. He was quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer of September 28, 2009 as suggesting that a name change was in order. Why is it that he and others who have floated this idea did not raise it at the national convention in May 2010? Were they afraid of the membership response as they were of the response to stopping the printing of the People's World. This shows utter contempt for the membership. Why was Political Affairs chosen as the vehicle?

    At this point the discussion should be initiated by the National Committee in a formal way with guaranteed discussion in every club.

    Posted by David Bell, 11/17/2010 8:10pm (13 years ago)

  • I'm with Tony Pec on this.

    It's true that audiences ask us, "why don't you change your name." The best answer I ever saw came from Judith L, who replied, "It wouldn't be honest. We are the Communist Party!"

    --jim lane, currently in Kentucky

    Posted by Jim Lane, 11/15/2010 8:00am (13 years ago)

  • I have to say that upon reading this, as well as inquiring to join the CPUSA, I was rather astonished to find that there presently are no candidates running for election specifically under the Communist Party name. I do know, however; that in discussions I've had with various individuals the vast majority of them agree with what Communism stands for, but almost all of them bring up the Soviet Union along with an expression of fear.
    I have also had negative feedback on the word 'socialism' as well, which truly astonished me. In fact the girl in question was more apalled that I called myself a socialist than when I referred to myself as communist. Perhaps a name change is in order along with a dedicated pursuit of quality candidates to fight the legal battles in the states as well as in the nation's capitol.
    Perhaps we could stage our own 'teaparty' of sorts within the greater umbrella of the Democratic Party? Perhaps by staging such a coup within the Democratic Party a change to the actual organisation's name would be unnecessary since the CPUSA already supports many Democrats in their individual bids for public office.

    Posted by Charles Kyger, 11/15/2010 3:38am (13 years ago)

  • I am glad to see my article has sparked some discussion here on the pages of PA. The reply articles from John Case and Emile Schepers are much appreciated and were good reading. Whether my proposal for a name change comes to pass or not, I think our organization will be healthier for having had the discussion.

    The points made by Terrie and John in their replies below about the need to become much more involved in the electoral arena are ones I would wholeheartedly agree with – that is a key part of my argument. The difference might be whether we see this happening specifically under the “Communist Party” banner or not. Running as independent or Democratic candidates would, I think, be the most productive use of our time and resources. Having participated in the campaigns of specifically Communist candidates, it has not been my observation that, other than a few new recruits, the payoffs are equal to the expenditures (of time, money, and people).

    I also don’t think that a change in name is necessarily equal to taking a non-struggle approach to anticommunism. The CPUSA has been fighting the good fight against anticommunism for decades, but the mass negative association remains – and it always will. Rather than taking a ‘non-struggle approach’, I was simply hoping to step back and see what were the pro’s and con’s of maintaining the current name. And as I’ve said, it is not only about some cosmetic exercise in re-branding or changing the sign on the storefront (though we should). I think the content of the party has changed over the years, but its form largely remains what it always was. The principles and traditions are still there (and should largely remain so), but they have been added to and supplemented.

    A few of the submissions have raised concern over the ‘reformist’ direction that a change in name or organizational style/structure might imply. The argument goes that the CPUSA would be abandoning its ‘revolutionary’ perspective or heritage. Personally, I think that the reform vs. revolution debate is long passed its sell-by date in the United States (think circa early 1900s). It is stale and unproductive. I don’t think there is any way to a better, more progressive (and socialist) U.S.A. that does not go along the path of reforms. Sometimes those reforms may come slowly, at other times rapidly. The pace of political development will determine that, not some preconceived commitment to revolution over reform. ‘Revolutionary’ posturing should be put aside for the sake of serious analysis and serious political engagement.

    E.E.W. Clay said that, “No name shell game” will fool the working class. In my opinion, continuing the name Communist Party – in a time when our politics and thinking have largely transcended many of the stereotypical past practices of CP’s – would itself be a shell game.

    At any rate, Joel really hit on one of my goals in this discussion when he said:
    “I don't think a focus on a name is the main point. Political work and programs are. Whether or not what we do is or needs to be party work is the main issue here. Whether or not social change comes necessarily at the hands of a political party is the main issue. Clearly in the U.S., history suggests that our historically specific experience is that movements not parties make the most change.”

    But I would still emphasize that our name should match our mission. And we do need to be a part of a movement that can cross boundaries while not being afraid of realistic and pragmatic electoral participation.

    Posted by C.J., 11/09/2010 10:27pm (13 years ago)

  • One can understand the desire to change the name of the Communist party-it is true that the CP will not become a mass party if most people in our country associate the word "Communist" will all kinds of terrible things. But advocates of this change should be honest-it is not the name only that will change, but the essence of being the kind of organization we have been. The temptation, especially in a period like this, for Communists to believe that if we just gave up everything that makes us Communists we would have a greater influence- But the question is influence for what?
    First we should look at what makes the CP a distinctive political organization. I think there are four features: belief that the working class is at the center of progressive political change; that racism has been historically the most useful tool of the ruling class to protect itself against challenges to its rule; that imperialism has created mass suffering and oppression in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the responsibility of progressives, as well as revolutionaries is to actin solidarity with those movements combatting imperialism around the world.; that capitalism is inherantly oppressive and needs to be replaced by socialism; and that only through participating in mass social and political movements that address the daily needs of the working class can Communists hope to effect change. If people don;'t like the Communist Party it is because of these principals, not because of the name. And if we want to win a popularity contest in the US we need to abandon these principals. Concern over the history of socialist states is a side issue. As American History shows Anti-communism in various forms PRE-DATES the Soviet revolution, PRE-DATES Stalin-it is not fundamentally a debate about how to build a more equal and just society and how to avoid the errors of the previous generation of socialist societies.
    There are two additional issues. First these moves to become more "popular" are always characterized by believing that the people who have never become Communists are more important that those who have. Communists have become Communists because they want a radical-dare I say-revloutionary change. If we wanted to be reformers or "progressives" there are many avenues to do this-This is not to disparage reformers or progressives- they are not Communists and do not want to be at the moment. Why should they become Communists if all the CP (or whatever name you want to call it) are simply another varient of progressivism?

    Finally, I think there is an illusion that if we stop being who we are we might become a mass party like the French or Italians during the 1950s and 1960s. That is not likely to happen no matter how much we soften our principals. We live in a society which doesn't like its communists, but whose people needs them. If we are not Communists then who will be?

    Posted by Louis Shipman, 11/09/2010 9:45am (13 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments