Support the Struggle Within the CPUSA

The editorial board stands in solidarity with the brave Communists in CPUSA who are fighting for the democratic rights one expects in a “party” that claims to adhere to any kind of democratic centralism. The letter we have published below came to us through third party hands; Unity–Struggle-Unity Press has no membership in the CPUSA and has no influence on the party’s internal politics save for what we publish. It is clear that the leadership of this party, rightly referred to as a “den of vipers” in the letter below, has no intention of permitting revolutionary organizing of any kind, let alone true proletarian democracy, to flourish. The manner in which their party members — the individuals who have devoted their blood and flesh to the cause of revolution — have been treated for voicing even the most tepid and lukewarm dissent with the anti-democratic practices enforced by the party leadership clique is disgusting and amounts to nothing less than abuse.

We are thrilled to see that the struggle within CPUSA is intensifying. We lament the cowardice of the party’s leadership as it fleeces its members, expels them without process, and contravenes its own already undemocratic constitution to prevent any dissent. The CPUSA leadership has clearly been educated in what it means to be a Communist by the U.S. State Department, and that Communists do not permit even a whiff of argument to reach their sainted ears.

We agree with the embattled Communists in CPUSA who are fighting for its democracy — its very life. A party which does not maintain internal democracy is not a party, and it will not last long. We at the Red Clarion have already made our assessment as to the actual class forces in control of the CPUSA, and the 32nd Convention bore out that analysis. Nevertheless, we retain hope that we were mistaken and that the brave fighters for Communism who still live and breathe within the oppressive, stultifying, abusive atmosphere of the CPUSA succeed in re-introducing a party democracy that has not existed since the 1940s at best.

Even if you disagree with us, we urge you to read the letter below and judge it on its merits. Read the evidence that has been presented. Read of the treatment of CPUSA members — hounded and harried by the “National” Committee (a disgusting perversion of the term nation, which any Marxist-Leninist would know!) and literally driven underground in their own party. Decide for yourself whether or not these heroic efforts, against the entire current of the CPUSA stream, are deserving of praise and solidarity. Do not take the word of confessed liquidators. Do not take our word for it. Investigate.

Comrades,
This is another update on the “Comradely Petition to the National Committee”, which can be found at https://tinyurl.com/cpusapetition. Today I would like to cover the following topics,

1. The intention behind the petition
2. The argument about Joe’s main report
3. The “factionalism” argument

The Intention Behind the Petition

I will begin by reiterating the intention behind the petition and commenting on the events of the past few days. There is a dire need to separate truth from falsehood and to explain the path Party leadership has chosen since the petition came to their attention.

Despite the numerous accusations, theories, and rumors which have circulated about myself and other signatories, all it calls for is more discussion on Resolution 5 regarding the 2024 elections, discussion on the question of our support for the Democratic Party. This is only due to the irregularities of the 32nd National Convention surrounding this question and no others. The way this question was handled was straightforwardly unconstitutional, as I will show.

Let me make myself very clear: the petition is not about my or others’ position on the 2024 elections, it is not about Party policy, let alone against Party policy. It merely acknowledges what should be clear to everyone: that Party membership is divided on the elections issue, that the disagreement was supposed to be discussed and resolved at the 32nd National Convention, and that there was a targeted curtailing of the discussion necessary to arrive at the point of unity. It calls for the unfortunate mistakes that led to this outcome to be rectified rather than swept under the rug.

These mistakes should be rectified not because any of us is upset that his or her position ‘lost’ and we want it to ‘win.’ They should be rectified because true united action is not possible without comprehensive mutual understanding. We do not all have to agree, but we do have to hear each other out. Those with one perspective on the issue were given ample time to express their position. Those with other perspectives were not. Five minutes is not sufficient time to thoroughly discuss any serious issue and certainly not the most contentious in the Party with historical significance. This is bad not for just one ‘side’, but for the whole Party.

I recognize that a decision was not reached on Resolution 5 at the convention. It was referred to the National Committee for decision as the vote by the delegates on the floor was ‘unclear.’ Many who wanted to alter Party policy on the issue felt this was a win for their position, as a resolution has not gone unconfirmed at a convention in 30 years, let alone a resolution on electoral strategy. What these comrades fail to recognize, however, is that this act violated the constitution by failing to establish a majority as required and then violated it again by referring the issue from the highest authority, the convention, to a lower, less representative body. It was pure procedural chicanery meant to confuse, distract, and demoralize comrades ‘not on the same page politically’ while ensuring the ‘correct’ outcome behind the scenes.

This was my intention behind the petition. Claims to the contrary have been made, relying not on evidence but on conspiracy theories about ‘outside Maoists’ or some other group pulling the strings. (Can someone please tell me who Dr. Thomas Riggins is?) The fact is that many in the Party are discontented with either the lack of discussion time at the convention or Party policy on the matter. Instead of dealing honestly with this fact, leadership has tried to pin the underlying problems on outside bogeymen. If members have disagreements, apparently they cannot be honest disagreements. They must be disagreements borne from malign outside actors using these members as their puppets. Better yet, some members who have given their time and energy to the Communist Party for years are supposed to have been ‘undercover Maoist agents’ the entire time! Is there one scrap of evidence for such claims? No, but they must be true nonetheless! Could these individuals simply be dedicated communists who want the tradition of democratic centralism to be upheld? “No,” we’re told, “those don’t exist.” Quite frankly, it’s ridiculous.

As a result, what should have been a benign point of discussion within clubs became something much larger and, apparently, far scarier. Club discussions have been shut down across the country, members have been purged unfairly, and others have been strongly reprimanded. I myself was met with a ‘corrective action’ meeting late in the night this past Sunday, June 23. I wasn’t informed that this was what it would be. I was told it was merely a meeting, but it was a meeting in which leadership began the process of formally purging me.

Rather than a focused discussion on the petition, the issue under question, I was met with roughly an hour of disorganized, apparently unprepared remarks on various individuals’ experience at the convention. I also received a number of unrelated lectures on the need to fight fascism by supporting the Democratic Party. A few moments were dedicated to attempting to address the actual concerns of the petition, concerns which did not have to do with Party policy but rather with the lack of necessary discussion at the convention. These responses seemed deliberately obtuse, however. They did not meaningfully grapple with the issue at hand, the petition, and the issue which underlies it — the substitution of bureaucracy for democracy in the Party.

This was regrettable, but by this point, it was not a surprise. As such, I expect this to be my final message as a Party member before I am expelled for my stance which I see no good reason to back down from.

The Argument about Joe Sims’ Main Report

Some National Committee members have argued that the vote on Resolution 5 was unimportant because Joe Sims’ main report had already been adopted, superseding it. To “adopt the main report” does not mean to certify its content as Party policy, as the main report is not a policy document. The main report is just that: a report, one on Party activity, particularly over the period since the last National Convention. A report necessarily also comments on the Party’s direction and trajectory, as the convention marks the point at which the Party meets to adjust its current direction according to changing conditions, minor or major.

However, a main report cannot be taken to unilaterally dictate Party policy. It is the National Convention, the highest body of the Party, which assesses and decides Party policy for the next four years. A report, written without input from elected delegates and given before the convention even begins deliberation and discussion, is not a proper substitute for democracy at the National Convention.

Therefore, the idea that the main report is what ultimately matters and not the input from the whole body of the Party gathered over months during the pre-convention discussion in the form of resolutions is not only wrong but also a rather humorous attempt at saving face and again trying to sweep an objective point of contention under the rug.

The “Factionalism” Argument

Joe Sims, with the backing of the National Committee, has described the Comradely Petition as, “the very definition of factionalism.” Many in lower levels of “leadership” have unquestioningly fallen in line with this proclamation, and many members followed suit. It is understood that dissenting voices will be subject to the unconstitutional “purges” common in recent decades. Is this accusation accompanied by any theoretical justification or historical analysis? None at all. It must simply be accepted as dogma by any opportunist member who wishes to secure their position and rise through the ranks. There are no principles to be found here. We only see the blanket statement that any Party communication without the express approval of this opportunist clique is, by definition, “factional”.

Let us briefly examine the actual historical basis of factionalism. In comrade Stalin’s speech to the CPUSA in 1929 he says,

Factionalism weakens the Party spirit, it dulls the revolutionary sense and blinds the Party workers to such an extent that, in the factional passion, they are obliged to place the interests of faction above the interests of the Party, above the interests of the Comintern, above the interests of the working class. Factionalism not infrequently brings matters to such a pass that the Party workers, blinded by the factional struggle, are inclined to gauge all facts, all events in the life of the Party, not from the point of view of the interests of the Party and the working class, but from the point of view of the narrow interests of their own faction, from the point of view of their own factional kitchen. Factionalism, by weakening the will for unity in the Party and by undermining its iron discipline, creates within the Party a peculiar factional regime, as a result of which the whole internal life of our Party is robbed of its conspirative protection in the face of the class enemy, and the Party itself runs the danger of being transformed into a plaything of the agents of the bourgeoisie.

Do we see here anything to suggest that communication between Party bodies at the grassroots level is the “very definition of factionalism”? No, we see that factionalism creates a peculiar regime within the Party which places the interests of the faction above the interests of the Party and the working class. If such a faction gained leadership, would it seek to enshrine itself as the only approved middleman through which all Party communications must flow in order to be considered legitimate? Factionalists would certainly jump at that opportunity.

Because they threaten the unconstitutional rule by national and regional Party bosses, the grassroots members of the Party who assert their rights are smeared and attacked. Does the call for a special National Convention threaten the wellbeing of our Party so much? Or is it only that it threatens this reformist clique occupying seats of power in the Party? At any point in this petition ordeal, has any group of members demanded the usurpation of leadership for themselves? Have the petitioners sought to coalesce a faction around themselves at the expense of correcting and strengthening our Party? To the contrary, we see only that those signing and discussing the petition seek to maintain the unity in our Party and to mend the rift exposed at the 32nd National Convention. Many have forgotten in the course of the slinging of accusations that the simple proposition of this petition is that clubs should exercise their right to call for a necessary special National Convention by presenting a collective request to their respective districts. This unifying aim is clear to any who have operated in good faith so far, although few have.

Conclusion

I have attached a list of nearly 30 constitutional violations which occurred over the last few weeks, covering almost every article of the constitution. With such profound and thoroughgoing disregard for the Party constitution, every other article is therefore called into question as well — even Article I. By what right can this organization call itself the “Communist Party of the United States of America”? Was it not as recently as 2014 that the leadership of this “communist” party entertained a discussion on the removal of Marxism–Leninism from its platform? Perhaps this was only rejected in order to lure more enthusiastic would-be communists into this endless hall of mirrors. These naïve true believers wander aimlessly without genuine leadership until eventually they become demoralized husks, ready to carry and spread the opportunist disease.

In my exchanges with “leadership”, the illiterate den of vipers, I’ve come to realize that the Party constitution is nothing but toilet paper to them. The only true authority of “The Communist Party of the United States of America” is the consolidated reformist faction dominated by Joe Sims and Rossana Cambron. What a pitiful cult of personality to serve. Rossana introduced herself at the convention by saying that she had no desire to prioritize reading the words of Marx, Lenin, or any other Marxist–Leninist thinker. This trait seems to be shared by the entire faction occupying the National Committee. Joe Sims, on the other hand, is an avid follower of the internationally renowned Marxist outlets, CNN and MSNBC. The only reason I have stayed within the ranks of this sham of an organization was to attempt to honor the historical legacy of the Party and the contributions of fine communists like William Z. Foster and Gus Hall. Their souls are now despairing at the sorry state of the Party to which they dedicated their lives. I have always sought to maintain a principled stance and to help correct these wayward reformist trends, but it has become clear that no such mechanism of democratic centralism truly exists.

To those people who tell me they are in the process of signing at their next club meetings, I wish you had acted with more urgency, but I wish you luck and perseverance against these snakes who have appointed themselves our leaders. To those cowards who privately supported and encouraged many of us across the country in our fight to restore democratic centralism but whose resolve evaporated when the time came to actually sign, I hope you have enough self-respect to feel ashamed. To those rats who squealed at the first sign of mild social risk and fed information to our venomous dictators, I hope you find a quiet hole in which to waste away rather than come near any independent political organization again.

When I sent the National Committee my petition, the only rebuttals they produced were personal attacks and nonsense. They paid no attention to the constitutional arguments and produced no theoretical justifications for the petty dictates of national leadership. They stuck their heads up out of the pit to be squashed one by one with minimal effort. No real communist would put up such a meager defense. They called me narcissistic for thinking the National Convention could even impact the direction of the Party. How was I to know I was interrupting their 30-year-long meaningless tea party for the Democrats? I crashed in, thinking this was some kind of communist party. My mistake.

I would also like to state for the record that in the process of trying to bring the petition to as
many comrades as possible I discovered that there is indeed a Maoist faction operating out of clubs in Austin, Chicago, Louisville, L.A., and elsewhere. I know this because they reached out to me, but I rejected them and their genuine project to destabilize and destroy the party wholesale. With this, the irony of accusations against rank-and-file clubs who signed this petition in good faith comes full circle. As a matter of fact, up until 2014, it was grounds for expulsion for members of the party to sling accusations of outside influence. Now we have the very leadership accused of such things slinging these accusations at rank-and-file members themselves!

Your comrade,
Marcello Paussa

Appendix: Constitutional Violations

These are violations of the Party constitution on the part of the National Committee as well as national and district leadership in the period surrounding the 32nd National Convention and the circulation of the “Comradely Petition to the National Committee”.

Article II – Principles of Organization

SECTION 1. In the Communist Party, all decisions are arrived at through democratic procedures, emphasizing the maximum input from members. Unity is the strongest weapon working people have in the struggle to advance their interests. By making a commitment to unite around a program of action, members strengthen the Party and help unify the working class and peoples movements.

Collectivity is the basic style of work of the Party. Through group discussion and action, we seek to develop and apply the best possible plans to advance the interests of working people. The principles outlined in this article are used in practice by many peoples organizations to foster democratic decision-making and unity in action. Historically, these principles have been known as democratic centralism.

• Rather than emphasizing “maximum input” and “group discussion”, national town halls and pre-convention discussions in many clubs and districts were tightly restricted. Some districts, like North California, had no discussion at all.
• Resolutions to change the Party’s electoral policy, including one submitted by an entire district, were rejected.
• “Maximum input” was also not emphasized at the National Convention: discussion was severely curtailed on Resolution 5, the resolution which the most delegates signed up to discuss by far. It received a small fraction of the discussion time that resolutions with unanimous support did.
• The chair of the first convention session violated democratic procedure by ignoring an objection to the convention rules after calling for them to be voiced.
• National Committee members described Joe Sims’s main report as the authoritative document of the convention, overriding any resolutions. This report was not subject to any democratic procedures or review.
• A National Committee member stated that even a rejection of Resolution 5 would have no impact on the Party’s policy.

SECTION 2. The National Convention is the leading body of the Party. It elects a National Committee to function between conventions. Districts and clubs shall act in accord with the decisions and policies of the National Convention and National Committee.

• The “leading body of the Party” was not permitted to deliberate on contentious issues despite several attempts from the floor to assert the authority of the National Convention delegates over the pre-selected presiding committee.

SECTION 3. Decisions in all Party bodies are arrived at by majority vote or by consensus at club and district meetings unless anyone requests a vote. Decisions of leading committees on major questions shall be reported to all other Party bodies. Clubs and districts shall keep national leadership informed of their activities.

Any member disagreeing with a decision of a Party body may appeal the decision to the next higher body. Appeals may be made to successive leading committees.

Members who disagree with a decision are expected to refrain from organizing against or publicly undermining the decision, including during the appeal process.

• The National Convention is a Party body (see Article II, Section 2). Failing to establish a majority on any decision was a breach of the constitution. A request for voting by secret ballot was shouted down as out of order when in fact it was constitutional.
• The National Convention is the highest authority of the Party. It is wholly unconstitutional to refer close decisions to the National Committee, a lower and less representative body. Nearly 300 delegates were stripped of their right to represent their districts in favor of empowering the self-selected 89-member National Committee.
• National Committee members organized against the UConn/Storrs club while their appeal process was ongoing by spreading false rumors about them.
  • The members of this club confessed to no wrongdoing or outside affiliation. They
    did not vote to dissolve their club. Their club was dissolved by the Connecticut
    district leadership with no legitimate justification as retaliation for their signing
    onto the petition.

Article III – Membership

SECTION 4.

Every member of the Party shall have an equal opportunity to participate in the collective analysis of the current political situation and to plan and carry out the work of the Party. Every member shall have an equal vote in the elections of the Party collectives to which that member belongs.

• Members have been removed from chats in clubs across the country for discussing the petition. This violates their right to an equal opportunity to participate in analysis, planning, and carrying out the work of the Party.

SECTION 7. Members of the Communist Party shall work to strengthen the labor unions, civil rights, peace, youth, student, religious and other community organizations and social networks in which they participate. They shall promote the voice and effective participation of the working class. They shall promote unity with the allies of the working class in the course of fighting for common goals.

• A National Committee member removed an LA Metro member from a non-Party community organization chat due to completely unrelated contention over the petition.

Article IV – Club Organization
SECTION 1. The basic unit of the Communist Party shall be the club, based on community/neighborhood, workplace or other standards set by the National Committee. The club shall serve as a collective for members to discuss and analyze local and national political challenges, make plans to activate members and allies in on-going struggles and provide for educational activities.

The club is a place where grassroots conditions help formulate district and national policy, and where district and national programs and policies are adapted to local conditions and implemented. The club should be a center for local organizing. It should also be a warm, supportive and open community for all those fighting for social justice and socialism. Clubs are a primary center for fund raising, including collection of dues, for political education, for organization, and for discussion and promotion of the Party’s online and printed publications.

• The National Committee and district committees dictated to clubs what they could and could not discuss, which violates the clubs’ right to hold grassroots deliberation as the basic party unit.
• National Committee members, such as Waleed A., told delegates to leave the Party if they had concerns with the unconstitutional proceedings of the 32nd National Convention.
• National Committee members spread falsehoods about Party members in the UConn/Storrs club, violating the requirement to create a warm and supportive environment.

Article VI – National Convention

SECTION 1. The highest authority of the Party is the National Convention. It is authorized to make political and organizational decisions binding upon the entire Party. The decisions of the National Convention shall guide all Party organizations and members.

• The National Convention delegates were dictated to like an audience. They were no allowed to decide or guide anything.
• The delegates had no opportunity to correct the course of the convention or submit requests to the presiding committee, which had been pre-selected by the National Committee.

SECTION 2. Regular National Conventions shall be held every four years. In case of extraordinary circumstances, a National Convention may be postponed beyond the four-year limit by a three-fourths vote of the National Committee.

• The 32nd National Convention was postponed a year, but there were no “extraordinary circumstances.”

SECTION 6. Each National Convention shall determine the number of members of the incoming National Committee. Election of the National Committee by the National Convention shall be by secret ballow.

• The outgoing National Committee dictated the number of members for the incoming National Committee to the National Convention. There was no possibility of altering this number.
• National Committee members, such as Waleed A., violated the secrecy of some delegates’ ballots and strongly pressured them to vote for specific National Committee candidates.

Article VII – National Committee

SECTION 1. Between National Conventions, the National Committee is the highest authority of the Party, representing the Party as a whole. As such, it is authorized to make decisions and take action necessary to the good and welfare of the entire Party, and to act upon all problems and developments occurring between conventions.

In the fulfilment of its duties, and in the exercise of its responsibilities, the National Committee shall guide and direct the political, organizational and educational work of the Party and shall organize and supervise its various departments and committees.

The National Committee shall encourage the widest discussion by the membership on questions of both theory and activities. It shall ensure the organization of broad platforms to facilitate such discussions.

The National Committee shall organize and direct all undertakings of importance to the entire Party. It shall administer the national treasury. The National Committee shall submit a financial report to each National Convention.

• No financial report was made available to the National Convention. Perhaps it was felt the highest authority of the Party was not entitles to that information.
• By proclaiming an effort to call for a special National Convention “factionalism,” the National Committee has prohibited any discussion of this assertion based in theory.
• No broad platforms exist for the widest discussion on questions of theory and activities. Views opposing support for the Democratic Party are discouraged and suppressed.

SECTION 4. Between National Conventions, the National Committee is responsible for the enforcement of the Constitution and carrying out the policies and plans adopted by the National Convention.

• National Committee members violated the constitution to serve their own interests. They subverted the procedure of the National Convention in order to prevent it from rejecting policies which they support.

SECTION 7. Summaries and reports of National Committee meetings shall be made available to State and District Committee and shall appear in digest form in printed or electronic form available to the Party membership.

• The National Committee, which should three times per year or more, has not issued any reports on its meetings to State and District Committees in several years at least. It is unknown when it issued its last report.

ARTICLE VIII – Organizational Integrity

SECTION 2. Comrades should assist each other to overcome weaknesses and shortcomings as much as possible and prior to taking any actions.

• There was no such assistance rendered prior to the unconstitutional dissolution of the UConn/Storrs club.

SECTION 4. Any member who se membership is challenged, except publicly self-admitted informers and provocateurs, must be notified of the charges against them, shall have the right to participate in the hearing and to bring supporting witnesses. The burden of proof shall be on those bringing the challenge.

• Those bringing the challenge against the membership of the UConn/Storrs club did not present any proof.
• No notice, expeditious or otherwise, was ever delivered to purged Hudson Valley members of a hearing or charges against them.

EVIDENCE