It is with a heavy heart that I have to announce that I am left with no other choice than to leave the party. I don’t want to leave, however, ideologically, I feel completely disconnected; not to mention, altogether demoralized, and hurt.

In this letter, comrades, I’m going to say some strong things. As a member of the N.Y.-District Committee, the Brooklyn Club Executive Committee, former, N.Y. State Executive Committee, and former NY-YCL Co-chair, I ask that you give some, at least, miniscule space for my critiques that are, in truth, deeply caring. Even though they may sound strong, they are not bad faith (I have been in the trenches in this party, please do not insult me and accuse me of being bad faith.) Also, please note and understand, my analysis is on tendencies and not people themselves.

As someone who has given their labor to the party, emotional and physical, for 3½ years all while my daughter and I suffer the vice grips of housing precarity, I have given every morsel of myself, and now, I must walk away from what I feel, I’m so sorry comrades, is an organization, it pains me to say, is blatantly, glaringly, uncommitted to, at the bare minimum, engaging in new and reinvigorating theoretical and praxical organizing efforts; and seems to have a vested objective in keeping the party ossified and painfully static.

Briefly delving into an historical interrogation of the party, rightist tendencies have been an unbroken thrum in the party since, most say, the Browderite dissolution of the party. However, from my analysis, this thrum, though embryonic at the time, began to extend at least five years prior to Browder’s open turn to the right. We must acknowledge, also, what the brutal Mccarthyist attacks have done to the party and the lasting impression it has had on its trajectory. Nevertheless, the party’s rightist shift happened before the Mccarthyist hunt.

In essence, we’re still, in this present juncture, confined, no, mummified in, the Communist Political Association. Further, it is these rightist throughlines that Haywood himself spoke to and was subsequently ostracized for speaking against until he was formally pushed out.

I have, myself, witnessed these rightist throughlines — as many in the N.Y. district have, in fact. In the 3½ years that I have been a committed cadre member, I have always felt somewhat ideologically disparate from the party. However, I continued to try to organize with the party, hoping that if I remained a committed, good faith comrade and rooted myself in theoretical study and praxical work, the party would see the work other comrades and myself were doing and they would begin to hear us out a little bit more; and we could, therefore, at least, begin to engage in genuine line struggle. I was wrong and this was an idealist mistake.

The chairs of the Brooklyn Club really tried to encourage our efforts and uplift our work in and outside of every monthly meeting. I have to say, had it not been for my club chairs and comrades in the Brooklyn Club, I would have left sooner; and maybe my decision to leave may disappoint them and maybe some others. I’m very sorry, but I truly can’t continue to stay and give my labor to an organization that actively seems to be shunning militant Black Communists who refuse to engage in pacifist ideations.

I was hoping that at our 32nd convention things would begin to shift, incrementally,  towards a more militant line with more input from the delegates there who opposed “being mere appendages” to the democratic party (Marx and Engles March 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League). Again, I was wrong. 

However, even before the convention, I began to feel fractured from the party. Last August I wrote a commemorative piece on Dr. Mutulu Shakur, uplifting him as a militant and powerful revolutionary who contributed to the movement on many levels including with his world renowned acupuncture. I was told by Eric B. that this piece was not appropriate for People’s World because it celebrated Mutulu’s violent past, and that this was not appropriate for the mass readership of P.W. or helping to organize them. I later reached out to Eric and told him that my piece on Dr. Mutulu never even mentioned violence, it only uplifts his acupuncture work (because I knew if I mentioned anything about his committed militancy, it would be an issue.) He then admitted he never read my article, but that it can’t be published in P.W. Similarly, I wrote an article for the preconvention discussion entitled, Western Marxism: The Crisis of Words Over Deeds, I was also told this would not be published on similar murky justifications. My other preconvention contribution on Imperial Feminism was, albeit reluctantly, published after I told Eric I was not going to change or water down my thesis.

The issue with the Mutulu piece happened a year ago, but I still stayed. I didn’t want to just leave. I wanted to stay and struggle for the correct line alongside my comrades. And, there were some strides made in terms of hosting some events and talks with people, but nothing structurally significant.

The convention left me confused and disappointed. All of the people who’ve been in leadership on the National Committee for the last 20 or so years, or more, were, again, nominated and voted in, with the exception of a few new additions all of whom are in alignment with Resolution 5. Facsimiles of the same sterile ideas. Not one voice of opposition was nominated. Many comrades raised their concerns and nominated other comrades in the opposition to be in the N.C. I also nominated myself from the floor… of course I was told I didn’t get enough votes. Voices of opposition and those in favor should have been counted aloud… they weren’t. A comrade stood up and called for a secret ballot, he was told he was out of order. The resolution was deferred to the incoming N.C., who, of course, passed it, but to provide a patina of democracy, asked people to submit “language suggestions.”

The party’s pivot to fighting against fascism (though this is critical) has severely truncated its socialist imaginary. This uncritical lack of examination of all the moving components of fascism and its chameleonic character; the way it morphs and transmogrifies itself in mode, but never in kind within the structures of capital, has not seriously been taken into account. Instead we are forced to accept haggard and warn ideas about the right danger; which is very real, we can’t deny this fact, but this undialectical approach disavows the strong liberal anchor that fastens the menacing drum of the far-right. Our party’s analysis, therefore, does not thoroughly account for dense and rooted liberal collaboration with fascism.

To heave against any ultra-left confusion, I’m not saying that Trump and the brigadier lynch terrorists are not an imminent danger to liberal democracy (which we ourselves have to interrogate; and which also was birthed from the mutilated blood of African and Indigenous people), I’m saying to place heavy emphasis on the chauvinist sadism of one party when both have a proven history of shared complicity; telling people to vote against MAGA-right forces while not placing brute class struggle as the spearhead and revolution as the ultimate aim, is duplicitous as best, willfully collaborationist at worst.

Again, so I’m not branded an ultra (although I know I am by some in the party), I am, to be explicitly clear, not denouncing the electoral struggle — the Trumpian white terroristic march is not to be minimized as there is a difference between a fascist movement and a fascist state — I’m merely stating that to marshal that over and against militant class struggle amputates any kind of socialist imagination in the collective consciousness and locks the masses of frustrated people into the imperial capitalist two-party dictatorship. Moreover, if all we’re ever instructed to do is vote against fascism using the broken vehicle of the Democratic Party, the possibility of a Socialist world is violently hijacked from us. And, instead of liberation being at the fore, it is peripheried and bartered in the name of what’s “practical.” Furthermore, practicality is employed to cut down revolutionary understanding and movement.

As a militant Black woman Communist, I feel completely alienated from my party. However, it seems to be a clear pattern in the party to shun Black Communists who hedge against Kautskyite pacifist utopias. Again, let me be clear, peace is our ultimate aim and we should pursue it wherever possible, but in order to attain that peace, a just peace not seeped in delusions about the outright brutality of the capitalist class, we must engage in class struggle with brute force. The most idealist and dangerous thing we can do is to think the ruling class and its repressive state apparatuses are going to let us just have a peaceful road to socialism when history has shown they will wholesale annihilate anything that even attempts to threaten their global nexus of blood and profit. Allende learned the hard way.

This is what happens when you trade placing the concerns of the most oppressed and allowing Black and brown people — who bear the brunt of capitalist degradation — to be at the helm of the movement, for a gutted and nebulous anti-racism campaign that doesn’t offer a root to stem analysis of the capitalist problem. 

There will be many more Black people who will pass through this organization and feel this daggering sense of alienation. Many more will be left feeling hollow and demoralized. A troubling pattern I experienced was the way Black comrades with more palatable, integrationist views integrationist not in the sense of an international cohesion around our shared aims of liberation, but integrationist in the sense of bartering liberation from capitalist asphyxiation for a rainbow coalition fantasy land that pushes revolutionary class struggle to blurred and forgotten margins — were instrumentalized over and against more militant comrades who do not hold pacifist, integrationist views. Militant comrades were scolded and infantilized for our views and told “Black people fought for the right to vote” in order to kill discussion around the party mostly centering the electoral struggle. Black people, may I add, fought for the right to be free, not to be the gutted appendages for a cadaverous Democratic Party. 

At our convention, well meaning white comrades were called racist by a white lady for challenging the Black comrade who believed it was important to adhere to and uplift the fight against fascism line and for Black people in this country to continue to use the Democratic Party, no matter how severely compromised, as a vector for change because, ” Black people built this country and fought for the right to vote.” The white comrades were chastised and called racist and were called upon to fight against their white supremacist behavior.

It is deeply insidious and manipulative to weaponize a person’s perceived Blackness and the fact that Black people were locked out of the right to vote in order to keep them psychically butchered and cleaving for life inside the Democratic Party; a party that has preyed on the socioeconomic strangulation of the Black community — a strangulation they themselves keep manufacturing so they can play good cop, bad cop with the lynch terrorists in the Republican party and obscure their role — for decades. What twisted manipulation it is to call white comrades racists for rightly countering the rhetoric of the Black comrade who employed the heavy adversity Black people face in this country sociopolitically in order to keep them from wielding their growing class awareness to struggle against the Democratic Party, and the two-party despotism as a whole, which seeks to maim their developing class consciousness and keep them enslaved to the Democratic Party, which is parasitically sustaining itself off the blood and labor of Black folk.

These events, as well as the more general streams of zionism that ebb through the party, made me really uncomfortable, and I did not know how to navigate these things with some of the Black and BIPOC comrades in the party who I felt sometimes took on the role of overseer to the more militant, non-pacifist comrades. Furthermore, you can’t uphold the legacy of Claudia Jones solely in words when you have a militant Black Trinidadian woman comrade who is left alienated and confused in the party. You must engage in revolutionary deeds, not barren words.

On another point, I’m not exactly sure what happened with the Austin Club, but from reading their statement and assessing conditions in the party, the dissolving of their club, in my opinion, was unfounded. It was purported that comrades in the Austin Club were inspired by and trying to incorporate in their practical work some revolutionary Black nationalist elements of organizing. Some members, from my interactions with them, have expressed disrespect and demeaning attitudes towards the Black Panther Party that they try to drape in the worn garb of “critique.” Interestingly, though, the same people who say they’re merely critiquing the Black Panther Party don’t seem to give the same grace and energy for critiques of our party. This is an outright misrepresentation and vulgarization of critique.

Reactionary wrong ideas have not only been allowed to develop in the party, they have been cultivated, and in some cases, encouraged to a certain extent. Making fun of the Austin Club because they draw on the revolutionary Black nationalism (in stark contrast to bourgeois nationalism) of the Black Panther Party is evidence of the deep throughlines of Anti-Blackness that courses through the party like a virulent disease that has been allowed to metastasize. 

While there are segments of the Western left that do overly rhapsodize only the armed tactics of the Black Panther Party — and we should acutely examine this — there is a pattern by some within the party, and the broader Western left in general, to cloak their disdain for militant Black Communists in “critique.” Black leftists who denounce the armed struggle often use “Black militant” as a paternalizing slur; and palatable leftists are used to scoldingly cut down non-pacifist Black Marxists.

The revolutionary nationalism of Harry Haywood, Thomas Sankara, Chris Hani, Steve Biko, Selma Francois, Maurice Bishop, Kwame Nkrumah, Lee Nelson Perry, Robert F Williams, Sengor Lamine, Queen Mother Moore, Cyril Briggs, Nat Turner, Denmark Vessey, Walter Rodney, Yusuf Salman Yusuf, Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, Mehdi Ben Barka, Sékou Touré, Kwame Ture, Elain Brown, Huey, etc. all serve to strengthen and deepen the analysis of the world socialist movement. If comrades were given the proper theoretical guidance by the party, they’d know these very basic and obvious things are a part of the dialectical course of history. 

If the very framework from which we work is disjointed and muddled, everything which is built upon that will, henceforth, reflect that disjointedness. There doesn’t seem to be any real cohesion in the party in terms of practical work. Most of us, speaking for the N.Y. district, do work outside the party in other organizations; which is fine, but there doesn’t seem to be a weft connecting that external work with the party. Everything feels so disparate. 

Criticism/self-criticism, which is the very life-force of the Communist movement, is not practiced in our party. True and rigorous critique is altogether discarded in the name of accoladeism and self-aggrandizing empty statements that do nothing but atrophy the growing class awareness in comrades. Without the veins and arteries of criticism/self-criticism, we come to celebrate and uphold reformist ideas; demeaning and attacking anyone who dares challenge the liberal vague of delusion. To uphold destructive ideas using sporadic interjections of Marxists phraseology is to knife away at the global Communist movement. 

On the point of ultra-leftism; one can not deny that this tendency of frenzied petit bourgeois vicissitudes between Bakuninst terrorism and anti-revolutionary mania is a danger to building the global Communist movement. The party, contrastingly, does not have a serious ultra-left problem, it has a thoroughgoing right-deviationist problem. With all the scattered ideologies in the party ranging from elements of Trotskyism to the dominant social democratic trend, one can see how rightist ideas were allowed to seat themselves in the party and ossify it. 

Also, the term ultra-left itself is not a slur. It is not something you uncritically hurl at someone as an insult. It is an unblunted analysis of a tendency within Marxism. Allow me to draw your attention to one of the footnotes in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. In the text, Lenin goes into an explanation of the issue facing the Italian Communist Party with Bordiga and Turati. He goes on to affirm that Bordiga is correct in pointing out the destructive opportunism of Turati in him recognizing the dictatorship of the proletariat in words, but not in deeds, remaining seeped in parliamentarism. Lenin goes on to further castigate Turati stating, “Such a mistaken, inconsistent, or spineless attitude towards the opportunist parliamentarians gives rise to ‘Left-wing’ communism, on the one hand, and to a certain extent justifies its existence, on the other.” Rightist tendencies, in essence, births ultra-left confusions and imparts legitimacy to it.

In closing, when our party shuts down valid disagreement; when it seeks to quell voices of legitimate frustrations around the party line, it manufactures dissenting factions. We can not stay mute while the party traffics in economies of right deviationism. Confliction points will rise the more one seeks to suppress disagreement; that is the natural dialectic of political life. Party leadership must take responsibility for all the recent factions and splintering they’ve helped to create. Factions are also a natural outgrowth of being in a party. It is not necessarily bad, depending on varying context, of course, for factions to form: dissenting opinions inform and birth new synthesis. Party leadership also must grasp the stark difference between harmful factionalism and actual line struggle. The point of a party is to struggle for correct ideas that aid in hedging forth revolutionary movements, and when you cut off line-struggle, you asphyxiate the lifeline of Marxism-Leninism.

I can only hope that you can give a bit of space for my analysis and feelings. I can never hate the party. When my father died this past spring, the party was there; and they made sure comrades who, like myself, couldn’t afford to go to Chicago for the convention made it there. I have learned so much, and in my heart, I can never hold antipathy for the party, despite my well intentioned critiques maybe being misinterpreted. There are also many good comrades in the party, but I have to be honest, I often wonder what this even means when comrades, though they have good intentions, do not do enough to stand against the rightist ossification of the party.

I am not saying these things as some sort of learned person; I hold no fancy degrees, no degrees period, even. I’m saying this as someone — disenfranchised and gutted — who worked in a beauty supply in Brownsville Brooklyn for 16 years; I’m saying this as someone who was a young mother in high-school, as someone who is continually fighting housing dispossession, who came to the party for guidance, but many times felt shunned and lost.

I will, with everything I have in me, continue to organize around tenants rights, Black liberation, anti-imperialism, Palestinian liberation, Black womanhood, cultural work, unifying Korea, etc. as I did when I first joined the party 3½ years ago. As a steeled Marxist-Leninist, I believe in the party as the primary vector to help guide revolutionary change, and I’m hoping to very soon find one committed to this most vital effort.

In liberation,

Khadija.

I haven’t posted about this yet, but I quit Communist Party USA in mid-November 2023. Since quitting, I’ve been focused on getting several major health issues treated, building the Flint chapter of the Michigan Mutual Aid Coalition (MIMAC), and in addition to our mutual aid work, trying to build the basis of an educational program that MIMAC can offer to the public. I wavered on whether anything worthwhile could come from going public about my reasons for leaving CPUSA, but until now, have kept it to myself.

However, after the events of the past few days, with the party purging clubs and members, I feel compelled to speak up and discuss the reasons why I decided to resign the CPUSA. Perhaps it will help others. I’m going to address my reasons for leaving by subject.

Disdain For Mutual Aid Work

Several of us from MIMAC, already Marxist-Leninists, joined the party in 2022, while continuing our mutual aid programs, which started in 2020. Our hope was to become part of a larger network of Communists and have more opportunities to be politically active in meaningful ways, including the possibility of showing clubs how they can set up mutual aid programs in their areas, because it’s a great way to help in the community and build trust with the masses – The Black Panthers demonstrated this. But our local leadership poo-pooed mutual aid as “ineffective” and “not worth it.” The metric being used was apparently the efficacy of converting MA recipients to dues-paying party members. Evidently they “tested” doing mutual aid work and opted against it, but from all appearances, the “test” was a one-off attempt, hardly a scientific method to determine whether it is worthwhile activity. MIMAC’s track record and history were minimized and dismissed.

MIMAC has been coordinating food rescue with grocery stores, big box stores, warehouse clubs, and restaurants since 2020. Our volunteers do weekly pickups, delivery to the MIMAC pantry space, where it is sorted and stored, then put together in boxes of supplemental groceries that are delivered to households around Detroit. The Flint chapter our family has been building has also done some food rescue and redistribution in our area, but much less frequently. We have also helped pickup donated household goods, furniture and the like and delivered to households in Flint. Our recipients rely on us and we are delighted to be able to help them survive through late-stage Capitalism.

While the rejection of MIMAC work by the party was disappointing, I told myself it wasn’t sufficient reason to quit. Perhaps worsening conditions would cause them to change their minds, and even if they didn’t, I felt that this issue alone was not a cause for resignation, but I would not forget it if other issues arose.

Other issues arose.

Collaboration With Liberals And Democrats

Our MIMAC cadre had reservations about the way our district leadership discouraged mutual aid work, but was simultaneously insistent that members needed to volunteer to go knock on doors for Democrats, even being called upon to travel out of state to do so. That’s hardly revolutionary work here and now, a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and particularly since the Democrats are practically indistinguishable from Republicans in their support and defense of US Imperialism. Instead of being revolutionary, at this time in history, it is aiding our enemies. The Democrats are Bourgeoisie Capitalists – that is where their loyalty lies, and always will. Which is also why it was always so confusing to see Democrats like John Bachtell featured in People’s World in articles that serve the Democratic Party, but I digress.

The CPUSA statement on the attempted assassination of DJT was indistinguishable from Liberal responses. Looking at the statement from Socialist Party (I am not a member, I simply saw it posted on social media) on the matter, we can see what a revolutionary party response should look like, by way of comparison.

Member dues and fundraising monies are supporting paid leadership that isn’t actively working on building revolution, but instead throttling and squashing efforts to do so. It would seem that the CPUSA follows the same adage as Liberals and Democrats when it pertains to revolutionary changes: “Now is not the time.”

Rejection of Black and Indigenous Revolutionaries

It is not only a disappointment, but distressing to see the party rejection of the teachings of Black American Communists who correctly recognized their status as an oppressed nation within a nation under this settler-colonial system. To dismiss the work of those trying to emulate the important community service programs that The Black Panthers created and implemented by feeding people is mind-boggling. How can one expect people to fight against their oppressors on empty stomachs?

CPUSA leadership says that after investigation, they have determined that settler-colonialism is not the primary contradiction in the US. Who performed this investigation, and what sources did they consult? To reject the truth of settler-colonialism being at the root of oppressions against Indigenous and Black Americans – oppressed nations within nations – is a rejection of all Decolonial Marxist projects that have had to defend themselves against US settler-colonialism. How this can be reconciled without employing white supremacist arguments is beyond me. It is not a position I would be able, or desire, to defend.

Here is a passage from Kwame Ture and Charles V Hamilton’s book Black Power – please read it and think about what they would say regarding the outcome of the CPUSA investigation.

If one can look at the history and current conditions of Indigenous and Black Americans and still claim that they are not colonized by settlers, then nothing they say can be trusted, because they are either lying, or incompetent in their analysis. A Communist Party operating on stolen land obtained through genocide, that was industrialized using stolen labor, needs to prioritize the needs of the colonized and oppressed.

The US needs Decolonial Marxism, not a “Communist” party that weaponizes Democratic Centralism against members to ultimately defend the settler-colonial establishment.

Response To The Zionist Genocide In Palestine

Last October, I was distressed by the party response to the Zionist genocide, which includes tailing the “Communist” party of Isntreal on their position as to the solution in Palestine.

I came to the conclusion that could not in good conscience be a member of a party that does not center Decolonization and Land Back on its platform. If it couldn’t recognize this obvious need in Occupied Palestine, how could it have correct position on the US and its Settler-Colonialism?

I was urged by other Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Zionist members to wait for the convention, because there was a push by some members to correct party positions on Palestine and other matters.

Holy crows, am I glad I didn’t wait. The convention dug in on the incorrect positions, including having a representative – a Jewish settler – from the “Communist” party of Isntreal speak, who included Zionist talking points in their speech. This happened on the same day as the Nuseirat Massacre! Just abhorrent reinforcement of settler-colonialism and genocide.

Then to purge members who walked out quietly and without incident for principled reasons – and accuse them of wrongdoing for that and their mutual aid work? That’s something.

I have been disappointed that most of the major US Communist parties response to increasing Fascism has been to focus their attacks on the GOP, Republicans and conservatives. While I don’t dispute that Trump and company pose a threat, where have the protests against the increasing Fascism under the current Democrat, DNC, Liberal administration been, including but not limited to their support and complicity in the genocide of Palestinians, and their reaction to the anti-genocide movement and protestors?

While I doubt that this will make any difference in party leadership’s stance, in my opinion, CPUSA should be using party power and resources to support a 3rd party candidate with matching values, regardless of the likelihood of them winning.

The purpose of a Communist party is not to help Bourgeoisie candidates win in Bourgeoisie elections.

While Trump, his agenda, and his peers definitely pose a threat to increased domestic Fascism in the US, Biden and his administration have already increased Fascism both domestically and internationally. Why has the oppression, suffering, and slaughter of people outside of the US by the US not been met with the same urgency to resist against as the threat of the US population being affected? Our liberation is all tied to one another!

We Communists in the US are unwilling beneficiaries of US Foreign Policy – but beneficiaries all the same. How is it that there was not a stronger party response against the Palestinian genocide, and instead, coddling of the “Communist” party of Isntreal, which, when platformed at the party convention, included Zionist talking points – uninterrupted by leadership?

I made the correct decision to resign. I could not support these stances.

Remaining Members Personal Attacks Against Purged Members

Since the announcement of the purged clubs/members, I have seen some current CPUSA members focused and clearly emotionally invested in launching personal attacks against former members on social media. This is reminiscent for me of the treatment that the JW doomsday cult I was raised in manifests toward former members who are regarded as “apostates.” Meaning, it is cult member behavior. It’s extremely off-putting and alarming that this is the behavior these members consider acceptable and correct.

Is this the sort of activity the party wants to be represented by? If not, I wonder if they will be as decisive and severe in their actions against the current members exhibiting this behavior as they were against the former members being targeted. Time will tell.

So Now What ?

Now that I have shown you why I quit, and have criticized the party, many will ask, “then what should people do?” And I’m only going to tell you what I’m doing. I can’t tell you what the correct choices are for you. I am currently operating under the premise that these are the correct choices for me unless I discover that I’m wrong, at which point, I will reassess and adjust accordingly.

As I mentioned earlier, my own work with MIMAC, including the Flint chapter we are growing, is my focus now. I recommend joining or founding, then building up local organizations to help your communities get their needs met through food rescue and redistribution, seeking donations of needed items on behalf of those in need (furniture, clothing, household goods, etc) and then coordinating delivery of those items. Check with local business owners who might be inclined to donate things too. Add educational programs like read-alongs of history and revolutionary theory. We’re working on creating a Discord “Readers For Peace” group in our region where we plan to do weekly voice chats to read books together. We’re starting with Joel Andreas’ graphic novel ADDICTED TO WAR.

Literacy brigades are as badly needed here in the US now as they were in Cuba decades ago. They will look different, because conditions are different here and now, but they are very much needed. See these statistics from the National Literacy Institute:

Establish safe houses. They’re going to be needed, particularly as Fascism increases, which will happen regardless of who is in office, because that is the historical cycle we are in. The dying US Empire is lashing out at anyone resisting it, including here at home, as evidenced by the reaction to Anti-Genocide protestors, as well as the long history of state sanctioned violence against anyone attempting to wrest power away from the oligarchs who own most everything in this settler colony.

I’m a gardener and I share seeds. Check out the work of Urban Seed in Eastpointe, Michigan to get ideas on how to be of service to your community in growing food. In the same city, EP Free Store is not only redistributing donated items – they are serving lunches in the park weekly for kids who are out of school. Many kids rely on school breakfast and lunch programs during the school year that are not provided during the summer months. Feeding people is a way to help build community ties – and to get people to challenge their Anti-Communist indoctrination by seeing the deeds we Communists are choosing to do, instead of divisive Bourgeoisie partisanship.

These are some ideas, but certainly don’t represent the full scope of possibilities. I fail to understand why the CPUSA wouldn’t encourage and support activities like these, instead of de facto partnering with Democrats. Thankfully, it’s not something I need to wrestle with any longer, but I write all of these things in case you are struggling with it, dear readers.

In Conclusion

My motives in writing all of this include:

• Clearing up whether I am still a member of CPUSA (I am not, I resigned November 2023)
• Explaining my reasoning for resigning
• Recording the criticisms of the party that I am not alone in thinking
• Getting others to consider whether the CPUSA is in alignment with their goals as a revolutionary
• Defending the purged clubs and members against the incorrect accusations against them

I know there will be people who disagree with me, and I accept that. I am not interested in debating or arguing about it – I would rather spend that time doing constructive activities that help build revolutionary spaces.

I hope that if you are a CPUSA member who has been having doubts, you might find that you’re not alone in having those. If you’re considering joining, I hope these disclosures are helpful to you in determining if it is the right fit for you.

That’s all I’ve got to say on the matter. I need to get back to work on my own studies and so I’m going to wrap it up here.

Solidarity with all oppressed peoples! Our liberation is tied together.

On the evening of Monday, July 15, 2024, the Austin, Texas chapter of the Communist Party USA was liquidated by members of the Texas district committee. The district claims this vote was unanimous, but the representative from Austin was not made aware that this meeting was taking place, nor was she allowed to defend her club or participate in the vote.

The accusations made towards Austin comrades are factionalism and refusal to follow the Party line on four issues:

• Two delegates leaving during the “Israeli” speech at the National Convention in June 2024
• Not being fully on board voting for Biden/Dems – aka Resolution 5
• In house open discussion of the petition and reasons for its creation (we urged comrades not to sign it)
• Accused of “Black Nationalism” and following the Black Panther Party playbook with our mutual aid work

Let us address these accusations individually.

Yes, two of us left during the “Israeli” speech at the convention. Is quietly walking outside against the rules? No grand walkout nor vocal statement was made. We simply disagreed with what the man was saying, and thought that inviting him to speak after the Palestinian speaker canceled was bad optics. We stand by this belief. When should comrades dissent if not at the National Convention? Rather than having a comradely discussion on this issue, one of the Party co-chairs chose to make passive aggressive statements in her closing speech, “when you walk out on an Israeli comrade, you’re walking out on the working class.”

We disagree with the validity of her statement.

Free Palestine.

Yes, we dissented on Resolution 5, as did half of the delegates present at the convention. Again, when should comrades dissent if not at the National Convention? The Party claims that this “vote against MAGA” resolution is not a “vote for Biden” demand, although several Party members quite literally stated a need to support Biden and the Democratic Party during the shortened convention discussion.

On the last day of the convention, a white Party elder from Connecticut gave a speech calling all dissenters on Resolution 5 “racist” and “chauvinist” for refusing to support a genocidal, bourgeois administration with the statement, “Black and brown comrades fought and died for the right to vote, and you don’t want to?”

It should go without saying, but Joe Biden has a long history of racism against Black Americans. He is, right now, actively contributing to the genocide of the Palestinian people. Several Black and brown comrades spoke against Resolution 5, and a white woman accusing them of racism is disgusting and unacceptable.

Many of us were sent “A Comradely Petition” the week after the CPUSA National Convention. This petition was a demand to reopen discussion around Resolution 5 before the National Committee was slated to vote on it. The Austin delegation was in agreement that the petition was silly, and not the correct path forward, but that it was important to understand why it was created. Many rank and file comrades feel that they are not represented by the National Committee. The fact that the discussion around this contentious resolution was cut short added to those feelings.

All of the Austin delegates advocated against local comrades signing the petition. We did, however, give space for discussion at our local meeting. As many comrades were talking about leaving and searching for a new organization, we also gave space for this discussion. The discussion was very respectful and productive. Some comrades shared that they were ready to leave. Most stated that they preferred to stay and struggle under the Party banner.

A rat within our organization, who was not present at the National Convention nor at the local meeting, leaked internal documents to members of the Texas district committee. They used these documents without context to frame our discussions as “factionalism.”

Comrades, if you are suspicious of someone within your organization, trust that feeling.

The most bothersome reason for liquidation is this accusation of “Black Nationalism” levied because we read from members of the Black Panther Party, and participate in mutual aid work.

First, one major problem within the local chapter is that we currently have no Black members. Austin, Texas is the only growing major city in the US with a shrinking Black population. This is mostly due to rapid gentrification thanks to the ongoing tech sector boom and rising cost of living. Historically Black neighborhoods are being demolished for “modern” developments which have caused property taxes to rise rapidly and out of control. Austin is becoming unaffordable for much of the working class, but our Black and immigrant neighbors are the most affected by the rising cost of living.

Second, we see no issue with the concept of Black Nationalism as described by Malcom X and the Black Panther Party. While this is not something we, as a majority white chapter, are openly advocating for, why does CPUSA see Black Nationalism as a threat to their working class movement? It is up to those of us who do not live the Black experience to educate ourselves as much as possible on how to support our Black neighbors, their needs, and understand their experiences. Black Nationalism is simply self determination.

Third, mutual aid is the most important work we do in our community. Period. We were told that organizing with the lumpen proletariat is against the CPUSA Party Program. During our many reads of the Program, we have yet to come across such a passage. One major flaw in the Party is the lack of education around mutual aid and community defense programs, and some of us have brought this up on appropriate occasions. We do also participate in the local electoral struggle, as commanded by the Party.

Mutual aid is important for many reasons. The most obvious is that we are literally helping vulnerable people. Why would a communist not want to help those in need? It is also a way to meet and work with other individuals and organizations doing similar work in our neighborhoods. This is how we build alliances. It is also how we build community trust. “Communism” can be a scary word in the USA, and when people meet us out in the streets helping each other, we begin to build trust.

So this is what happened to the Austin, Texas chapter of the Communist Party USA. We no longer exist. Comrades were given the option to reapply to the Party and begin to rebuild from scratch. Everything we built over the last three years is gone. Most of us, including local leadership, are moving on. We have already begun to rebrand as a mutual aid organization, and have set up a meeting in a few weeks. We will be okay, and the work will continue.

Stay vigilant, comrades. Take care of each other. Support your community. We are all we have.

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