It is impossible to cover the lack of (and incorrect) analysis, the glossing over of history, and the dismissal of Marxist and Leninist principles (although at the same time trying to convince us of the use of them and dialectics) in Webb’s article.
However, there are a few general points that I feel need to be made.
1. During and after the pre-convention discussion, Webb took many of us to task for using our time to criticize the Party’s strategy and tactics and the Obama administration. It usually took the form of challenging us to be more productive in the mass arena. I now find it ironic that Webb would produce this document at this time and create a whirlwind within the Party and other sections of the left. What better way to distract us from the tasks at hand? The timing could not be better for the ruling class.
2. It is clear that Webb has already applied his suggestions for redefining the organizational principles (as still contained in the Party’s constitution) in order to bypass the National Convention, the National Committee, and the membership (assuming we can still define membership) by going directly to a public forum. Why wasn’t this document produced for pre-convention discussion and for resolution at the National Convention? I am sure that the pat answer that it would have diverted us from discussion of action, as was used when the question of the press came up, would have been forthcoming.
3. Why hasn’t the National Board insisted on producing this document in such a way as to guarantee the broadest possible discussion in the Districts?
4. Although it has been implied that I am part of a factional grouping because of my open affiliation with Marxism-Leninism Today, the National Board and Webb apparently do not see their actions with regard to this document as factional. It is being circulated initially outside the confines of the Party. We are not a secret organization, but we owe the membership some respect and democracy when such a basic far-reaching document is produced.
5. Why was this document first produced at a Party conference billed as a technology conference with no prior notice to the Party?
6. Is Webb proposing a merger with the Committees of Correspondence for Socialism and Democracy when he says he has rethought his position on the 1991 intra-Party struggle?
7. If carried to its logical conclusion, this document will accomplish what Browder and the ruling class have not been able to accomplish in almost 100 years, the liquidation of the CPUSA.
I propose that the National Committee call for a special convention to be held within the next six months to focus on this document and the direction it proposes. This special convention should have the power of making policy and electing a new National Committee and leadership.
I also propose that the National Committee exert its constitutional mandate to carry out decisions made at the May 2010 convention. We have yet to hear a report of the disposition of resolutions that were referred to the National Committee.
I propose that The National Committee investigate why amendments to resolutions that were approved at the convention were not reflected in the posting of the resolutions on the CPUSA web site.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-what-it-looks-ditrs’like-what-it-says-and-what-it-does/
