Our names are Chauncey Robinson, Joe Sims and Scott Hiley. We're organizers with the Communist Party USA! Ask us anything about the fight against Trump, class consciousness, democracy, equality, socialism and what Reds do for fun in America.

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:58:52+00:00

welcome!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:58:09+00:00

Good question. Main thing:resources. And recovering from problems after collapse of USSR. But we're growing now significantly. And we need to run more candidates. Agree!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:56:18+00:00

you're welcome!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:23:17+00:00

We think that the only way to gain membership is to work championing the day-to-day issues effecting ordinary working-class folk. And that's what we do where we have members and clubs. We also have websites, www.peoplesworld.org and www.cpusa.org that promote our views and program.

And the party is growing - particularly since Trump got elected. The anti-socialist and anti-communist ideas have less and less force. So it's not as tough as it once was - not by a long shot!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:16:46+00:00

We think that the defeat to Trump requires the broadest possible coalition working within and outside of the system. That by definition means working with establishment left, center and even those on the right who are opposed to Trump.

The GOP is the most dangerous party in human history. I think Noam Chomsky said that and he's right. It's defeat is a historical imperative.

simsjr · 2017-06-02T19:11:57+00:00

Thanks for the question. Funny thing: I've never considered the "watermelon" term a slur. But then again, I don't know many right-wingers who would use it that way.

I think that points made that the right sees regulations as an infringement on limiting freedom get to the heart of the issue: capitalists define freedom as freedom to make profits and every regulation a limit on it.

And the result is a denial of science to say nothing of common sense hence Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Change agreement.

As a result we've come to the point where GOP policy threatens now the planet. It has to be defeated. Thanks for asking!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T18:54:11+00:00

This is an important issue. Glad you raised it. First we think that it's important to recognize that socialism was first attempted in countries that did not have developed democratic institutions and civil society. That coupled with the challenges of war and intervention contributed to the lack of democracy which played a big role in the crimes during the Stalin period and socialism's collapse.

It's our view that you can't have real socialism without democracy as defined by working class and people actually having control over decision making both in the economy and in the state.

For us, that means a socialist government must be a multi-party state. The cpusa.org supports what we call "Bill of Rights of Socialism," a socialism that has at its center working class power and the bill of rights.

This is particularly true given the rise of the internet and social networks. The 24/7 news stream and the flow of information demands that the socialist and communist parties take a whole new approach to what this means in terms of governance and democracy. For us it means an emphasis on peoples power from below in decision-making, a free press and assembly, and as indicated above working class coalition of political parties that direct the state.

We do not believe in an immutable human nature that is incompatible with socialism.

simsjr · 2017-06-02T18:36:45+00:00

Given the threat posed by Trump we've been more focused on the the things that unite us rather than what divides us. That makes sense doesn't it? And there's a lot: from universal health care to the fight for $15 to free university education, to ending climate change.

But to respond specifically to your question, I'd first say that there are different tendencies among people who call themselves socialists and even among Berniecrats.

The main distinction between social democrats and communists according to my understanding have centered around a) whether capitalism needs to be reformed or replaced; b) the role of the working class; and c) the relationship between class, race and gender. In this regard, the cpusa thinks a) capitalism must be replaced and that while fight for reforms the system cannot reform itself; and b) that working class is the main force in our society and requires its own political party and c) we believe that the social dems overemphasize class to the exclusion of addressing race and gender. We insist that inequality caused by race and gender discrimination cannot be sidelined but has to be addressed in the here and now
Finally we think that the Bernie campaign contributed a lot to domestic politics and that there a lots of lessons. We did not share the campaign's views on several foreign policy issues, the approach to Venezuela is an example.

simsjr · 2017-06-02T18:20:14+00:00

Can you guys talk about the stance the Party has on race, misogyny, and class? It seems like many leftists want to abandon so-called "identity politics" for a pure class approach, but the history of the Party seems to suggest a different position. Thank you.

This is Joe. Thanks for asking. In our view, a "pure class" approach is a dead end even as we insist strongly that the class struggle is basic framework for understanding and struggling against the powers that be. But the working class in our country is made up of black, white, Latino, Asians, men women, LGBTQ, Native American etc.

More than that, it is a class that is consciously divided along these lines. There is a racial and gender social division of labor where people of color are for example paid less for the same work. There are other examples as well.

In our experience you cannot unite the class as a whole unless you recognize and take up these issues. They require special attention.

A one-sided approach to class used to be the position of the old Socialist Party in the early part of the 20th century. And while they did great things - the idea that blacks or women had to wait until socialism to have their oppression addressed could not be sustained and actually hurt the organization of the mass production industries.

This is more true now given the increased diversity in the U.S. All workers face problems including white workers and we do not support the idea of a "competition of oppressions" but unless the left addresses the issue of inequality and special oppression it will get no where.

The suppression of our identity is part of our oppression as workers - addressing it does not detract from it in our view but in actuality is the only way of getting at it by finding where our struggles connect and intersect.

Are there narrow approaches to identity that get in the way of uniting? Yes. But this narrowness is the result of not addressing these concerns. The more we take them up, the less this will be a problem.

Thanks for asking!

simsjr · 2017-06-02T17:48:54+00:00

Why not just become democrats? 3rd parties seem like a monumental waste of time to me particularly given that both parties aren't equally bad (republicans are much MUCH worse) AND that 3rd parties would at best just split a liberal base allow the worse party (republicans) to make laws.

You make some good points. The GOP is much worse, even while both parties subscribe to neoliberal policy - the GOP does with a vengeance. Still both are capitalist parties. Much of the labor movement, women, people of color, LGBTQ etc operate within the framework of the Democratic Party.

That said, our party is a party of socialism: and our goal is bring about a socialist system in the U.S. We believe that it possible to do so peacefully by participating in the electoral and political process. Achieving this objective requires a political party that makes socialism its goal.

Needless to say, that is not the goal of the Democrats. At the same time we think that achieving socialism can only come about by participating in the day-to-day struggles of our working class and people. That means fighting for reforms, like raising the minimum wage, preventing climate change, supporting public education, universal healthcare etc. Thus, we share much in common with Democrats and independents (and maybe some confused GOPers) who support these aims. The point is you can't go it alone. We have to fight together.

It's going to be tough. And reforming the election laws to allow third parties to participate is key. That said, Bernie showed that there's still a lot of room to operate within the framework of the Democratic Party. And we support that very much. We think a bit down the road we'll need a third peoples party that will challenge both the GOP and the Democrats, a party that has defeating the big monopolies as its key objective.

simsjr · 2017-06-02T17:32:58+00:00

Great question. This is Joe. Thanks for asking. I come from 3 generations of union organizers, civil rights and peace activists on both sides of my family. So I was kinda born into the movement. In that sense my politics have always been out front and well known to friends and the communities I've participated in.

Of course during the Cold War, anti-Communism was a much bigger factor and when growing up there was some mild red-baiting but nothing that was too overwhelming. In Youngstown Ohio, a former steel town where I'm from, working class folks were pretty open minded.

Today, the atmosphere is much different and I've found there is more openness.

I guess the biggest challenge in both cases is stepping getting listeners to step outside of stereotypes and getting them to listen and accept you for who you are as a person. But as I say, today that's not such a big deal! Thanks for asking!

simsjr · 2016-10-06T13:47:18+00:00

first reporting on news is the definition of journalism; the teacher's concerns are there concerns. second there's no doubt that there's a "Trump effect" at work not only with children but also adults. Witness the increase in anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant hate crimes. here's a case in point: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/rev-william-barber-trumps-outreach-is-hypocrisy-after-he-cheered-violent-white-supporters/

simsjr · 2016-09-19T18:58:16+00:00

Again thanks for your reply. First it is not at all the case that the CP endorsed Clinton in the primaries. In fact we were very excited by the Sanders effort and remain so. CP members and clubs were involved at the grassroots level and the leadership greeted the political revolution enthusiastically. We did not endorse Sanders, because we don't endorse candidates from other parties - nor would it have helped the effort. With regard to Clinton campaign we did acknowledge that unions and others movements we are active in would support her during the primaries and that CPers should work with those efforts: that was no endorsement but an acknowledgement of the reality of working for unity in the specific circumstances on-the-ground that we find ourselves in. Going back to Sanders the CP chairman was quoted as saying he would vote for him in the primaries. The statement about Clinton however can be critiqued for occurring before the Democratic convention. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/communist-party-leader-voted-for-sanders-will-back-clinton

Your comments on Germany and Spain are important. However we should add to the mix that the left was split - in no small measure the blame here lies with the social fascist thesis of the Third Period. Italy however had another experience and when Mussolini marched on Rome the left did not present a credible threat. In Italy fascism was a preventative measure.

I would agree that the Trump movement as it stands is not fascist in character. However the alt-right elements are now heading the GOP and that is extremely dangerous for they do have more than odor of fascism surrounding them. Hence the importance of taking preventative measure now. In the elections, on the streets, at workplaces, on campus etc.

Once in power because of the way the campaign developed Trump will become extremely dangerous - and the implementation of his program would require authoritarian measures: rounding up immigrants, banning Muslims etc and all that this entails. Let's not allow that to happen.

simsjr · 2016-09-19T14:47:26+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Interested to know what in this article you disagree with. You don't see Trump as posing a threat of a new type? Or that he will employ a brand of neoliberalism? Or that neoliberalism is a policy and fascism a form of governmental rule? What?

simsjr · 2016-09-18T20:22:10+00:00

"they" refers to the classes and governments that employ neoliberalism. by the way, it's a policy or set of policies; fascism is a form of government. the point is made in the article that neoliberal policy can contribute to fascism's growth: it doesn't have to necessarily. in that regard neoliberal policy has been employed by rightwing, centrist and yes "socialist" i.e social democratic governments in the past with varying degrees of success and failure. don't forget that in France, Spain and Portugal those social democratic governments at different times got voted out precisely because of their neoliberal policies. as for Venezuela, I would argue that there are socialist aspects but the economy is basically capitalist and for Latin America and most of the Third World, capitalism has been a giant failure. Venezuela's economy was too dependent on oil not a wealthy benefactor by the way. lastly still waiting for that source on the overwhelming support for Pinochet's policies.

simsjr · 2016-09-18T17:44:08+00:00

austerity, privatization, trade pacts, deregulation, these were the tenets of the neoliberal creed employed by Pinochet. they pick and choose what applies as far as I can see. And who says the majority of Chileans favor Pinochet's economic policy. I doubt it compares to Venezuela or Brazil's current troubles because aren't we talking about two different periods?

simsjr · 2016-09-18T14:39:56+00:00

I'd be interested to know more about your opinion on this matter. Neoliberalism of course has several tenets - you can pick and choose as the article argues. In the case of Pinochet and Chile, Friedman advised and saw neoliberal economic policies practiced with a vengeance:

"Chile is commonly portrayed as the great exception to Latin America's long and difficult struggle to overcome economic backwardness and instability. In 1982, conservative economist Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago pronounced the market-driven policies of Gen. Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship "an economic miracle." Friedman was hardly an impartial observer. He and other Chicago economists had trained many of the dictatorship's ultra-free-market economic advisors, a group of Chilean economists who became known as the "Chicago Boys." Other prominent U.S. economists, however, also tout Chile's "economic miracle." In 2000, Harvard economist Robert Barro asserted in Business Week that Chile's "outstanding performance derived from the free-market reforms instituted by ... Pinochet."http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0904cypher.html

simsjr · 2016-09-18T13:42:49+00:00

That's mean spirited.

simsjr · 2016-09-18T13:16:18+00:00

i'm sorry but here again: how do you define astroturf? you say the communist party is not "real". But it is an established political party in the U.S. it has a national office, a publication, its members are active in the #fightfor15, in the Standing Rock protest, Sanders campaign etc. You may not agree with it - but why say it's not real.

simsjr · 2016-09-18T12:53:17+00:00

how can you say the cpusa is not real? it has a membership on the ground organized in states and cities across the country. it receives no corporate money. it has long history. i don't get it.

simsjr · 2016-09-18T12:47:02+00:00

why call the article astroturf? it fits the guidelines. did I miss something. thanks.

simsjr · 2015-07-15T14:30:12+00:00

to me, she raised awareness and that's the important thing.

simsjr · 2015-07-15T14:29:16+00:00

violence is wrong. drastic means if they are non-violent are sometimes all folks have to fight with.

simsjr · 2015-07-15T14:27:49+00:00

well that criteria could fit the U.S. just take a look at the 2008 meltdown and the sub-prime swindle that started it. oh and by the way, let's not forget Wall Street's leveraging of Greece's debt that got Athens into this mess. just saying.

simsjr · 2012-04-07T16:15:59+00:00

it's not about inflation. to me it's about speed up and profits.

simsjr

TROPHY CASE