I don’t think accusations of revisionism are particularly productive at this point. Party A can accuse party B of revisionism and vice versa and who benefits? Someone accuses CPUSA of revisionism, someone else starts calling the PCUSA names, another person goes on a diatribe against the PSL, and what was gained from all of that?
I think we should focus our criticism on more specific instances of where certain individuals or parties fail and adopt erroneous positions and policies, while accepting that it is to everyone’s benefit if we don’t entirely dismiss them or label them this or that derogatory term, and instead work with them on a case by case basis where our goals and strategies align.
Yeah the first part isn’t something i would hold against them today. It was a long time ago, i’d say let bygones be bygones, and there are more important things to focus on…
…more important things like that second part. That is a serious red flag to be honest and far outweighs any “revisionist” positions they may or may not hold on some historical country, leader or event. How are you going to call yourself communist if you constantly go to bat for a bourgeois imperialist party? “But the Republicans…” is not an argument. If communists adopt an electoral strategy it should be “vote communist”, not “vote for the blue fascists so we don’t get the red ones”.
See this is what i mean. This isn’t just name calling it’s a justified criticism and they absolutely should be called out on this boneheaded policy. And even so i would like to think that we can still find some common ground, especially with the rank and file members to work together, and maybe try to convince them that their tailist strategy is very misguided and not at all productive.
I don’t think accusations of revisionism are particularly productive at this point. Party A can accuse party B of revisionism and vice versa and who benefits? Someone accuses CPUSA of revisionism, someone else starts calling the PCUSA names, another person goes on a diatribe against the PSL, and what was gained from all of that?
I think we should focus our criticism on more specific instances of where certain individuals or parties fail and adopt erroneous positions and policies, while accepting that it is to everyone’s benefit if we don’t entirely dismiss them or label them this or that derogatory term, and instead work with them on a case by case basis where our goals and strategies align.
Granted the CPUSA are quite literally the definition of revisionists. They pivoted to become Khrushchevites and rallied against Stalin.
But in all seriousness, have you seen their policy positions and electoralism? I kid you not, for the past 15 years it has only been “vote blue”.
Yeah the first part isn’t something i would hold against them today. It was a long time ago, i’d say let bygones be bygones, and there are more important things to focus on…
…more important things like that second part. That is a serious red flag to be honest and far outweighs any “revisionist” positions they may or may not hold on some historical country, leader or event. How are you going to call yourself communist if you constantly go to bat for a bourgeois imperialist party? “But the Republicans…” is not an argument. If communists adopt an electoral strategy it should be “vote communist”, not “vote for the blue fascists so we don’t get the red ones”.
See this is what i mean. This isn’t just name calling it’s a justified criticism and they absolutely should be called out on this boneheaded policy. And even so i would like to think that we can still find some common ground, especially with the rank and file members to work together, and maybe try to convince them that their tailist strategy is very misguided and not at all productive.